Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tetrahydrocannabinol. Mr.Z-man 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LD50 of THC[edit]

Too limited in scope. The toxic effects of THC are discussed at Health_issues_and_effects_of_cannabis#Toxicity_2. I would possibly accept that an article Toxic effects of cannibis or Toxic effects of tetrahydrocannabinol may be eventually appropriate. At present I can see no necessity for the present article. Delete, rename and/or merge. ZayZayEM (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into Tetrahydrocannabinol --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate places and redirect per nom and above comment. This article was created in 2004 and survived until now, suggesting that some feel it is an important search term. NJGW (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a redirect necessary? who will be searching for this term?--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a popular sound bite that it would take X pounds (much more than any other drug) of pot all smoked at once to cause an over-dose, which I'm assuming is the reason why this article was created so long ago, linked to from the various cannabis articles, and survived until now. Health_issues_and_effects_of_cannabis#Toxicity_2 looks like a great target, unless the toxicity section at THC is expanded. NJGW (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. LD50 is just one measure toxicity and is way too specific for an article. What's next, melting point of THC? --Itub (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, I give three options. Merge. Delete. or Rename. Please state merge target.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into tetrahydrocannabinol, although some content could also be added to effects of cannabis if necessary. I don't care much if the merge leaves a redirect or not, because the redirect doesn't seem useful, but on the other hand "redirects are cheap". --Itub (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. and recreate as dab Black Kite 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red, White, and Blue[edit]

Non notable, unsourced college drinking game Michael Johnson (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No established notability. No sources. A number of other articles being thrown into Template:Drinking games could probably be done away with too.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tricolour; this isn't an unlikely redirect for something on red-, white-, and blue-coloured flags. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that "the red, white and blue" is a common reference to the Flag of the United States, which is not a tricolour. Rklear (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and Redirect to Tricolour per Nyttend. Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into disambiguation page featuring links to tricolour and Flag of the United States of America. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as dab page, per TrackerTV. The Krzysztof Kieślowski Three Colors film trilogy could be referenced from there, also, as could Red White & Blue Beer. Rklear (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn drinking game. Dloh cierekim 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I blocked a user who kept removing the AfD tag. I would possibly merge to drinking games. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content already. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it only fair to mention the blocked user was the article's original author --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Tone 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Chicago (Panic at the Disco album)[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NALBUMS says : "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:CRYSTAL problems JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to TUGS. Since no article currently exists for merging, I've redirected the article to TUGS until such an article is created, and the content merged. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Cents (TUGS)[edit]

I am nominating this article plus the 26 others in Category:TUGS characters. Captain Zero (TUGS), Izzy Gomez (TUGS), were already deleted and the episode lists have also been merged following this discussion. These elements of the TUGS series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and extremely trivial statistics and model and toy details. Also the main TUGS article needs severe cleanup. There is already a TUGS wiki where this information has been transwikid. Formdog (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of the TUGS characters, either in the main article or separately, giving some information about who they are. It does not make sense to use a decision to merge episode articles as precedent to delete, not merge, character articles. I hope when the articles here are merged, they will be merged more carefully than the present state of the episode articles, which still provide excessive detail. There's a median, though we rarely seem to see it here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with DGG. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per D double G, the problem with these articles is that because the show was made so long ago, there are NO real reliable websites which source information on it. Is there anything that can be done about this in terms of this deletion debate, or even all the TUGS characters in general? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a character list per lack of individual notability. I think even a bold merger would have been non-controversial, so this AfD isn't strictly necessary (unless you really wanted to have them deleted in the first place). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Elmaleh de Buenos[edit]

Article is unsourced, makes unverified claims, and has not established notability. Google search returns very little, except for this article. JNW (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but original author should be given an opportunity to establish notability, for instance holdings of this artist in public galleries. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, but the original author started the article on July 14. Many edits have been made since then, and after notability and ref tags were added. Substantial public holdings, or gallery representation, tend to show up in Google searches. JNW (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately this was a long time comin'...sad but inevitable...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Michael Johnson (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by SGGH , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben ditchfield[edit]

not notable Church of emacs (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already speedied it when you added this AfD :) SGGH ^speak! 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was speedied x 3. I have auto warned the creator. I suppose the AFD is a edit conflict thing? Dloh cierekim 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again. Dloh cierekim 23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar (cartoonist)[edit]

lacks evidence to prove he meets WP:CREATIVE Michellecrisp (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - Meet WP:N, he together with Millôr Fernandes, Ziraldo and Prosperi criticized in the newspaper O Pasquim the Brazilian military dictatorship that installed itself after 1964. Jaguar however has been heavily criticized for receiving about US$500,000 in compensation for the persecution he suffered during those years. He was arrested by the censorship.

~~The article Millôr Fernandes is also being AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millôr Fernandes. EconomistBR 23:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - I just noticed the article was created 3 years ago has been edited less than 10 times, still has no sources and is still a low-quality stub. Keeping low quality rarely edited stubs is against my basic Wikiprinciples. Delete per WP:Source and WP:CREATIVE. EconomistBR 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keeping this may be against your principles, but it's not against Wikipedia's principles. The solution to the problem of having a low-quality stub on a subject that you know to be notable is to improve it, not to call for its deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if the article is low quality and rarelly edited as this one is, it should be deleted. This article was given 3 years to comply with Wikipedia policy, it failed, it should be deleted without discussion. The page is of a such low quality that it is violating the basic WP:Verifiability policy, on which WP:BIO depends on. Yet Jaguar (cartoonist) is going to kept despite of the WP:Verifiability violations and despite of the fact that it is de facto abandoned. EconomistBR 18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add citations for the above in the main article. Thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::English sources are hard to find but I managed to find this: Google books - Brazil in the Making By Carmen Nava~~

- Note that the reason this comment by Michellecrisp appears out-of-context is this edit by EconomistBR removing his previous posting. I'm not going to try to fix this, now, but I suggest that if you change your mind on any discussion page, it is better to ~~strikeout~~ your previous comment rather than remove it: especially if another user has replied. AndyJones (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable brazilian cartoonist. Portuguese wiki presents reliable sources in Portuguese. I present [1], article about Jaguar's interview in TV Senado, the governmental channel of TV, in 2007 July. And [2], [3], [4], [5], about indenization for political perseguition. There is quotes of Jaguar in Portuguese Wikiquote. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zero Kitsune has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is that sourcing to establish notability is available TravellingCari 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millôr Fernandes[edit]

lacks evidence to prove he meets WP:CREATIVE Michellecrisp (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Portuguese version [6] of the article has some sourcing and shows he is more notable than the English version asserts - a 70+ year career as author, poet, cartoonist, playwright and additional info can be found among the large number of Ghits for him. [7] Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - Meet WP:N, he together with Jaguar (cartoonist), Ziraldo and Prosperi criticized in the newspaper O Pasquim the Brazilian military dictatorship that installed itself after 1964.

~~The article Jaguar (cartoonist) is also being AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar (cartoonist). EconomistBR 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete- The article, which is 3 years old, has been edited less than 10 times. It has no sources and is still a low quality stub. The Brazilian Project must have some responsability over its articles. Delete per WP:Sources and per WP:CREATIVE. EconomistBR 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment - English source showing some of the impact the newspaper O Pasquim had despite of the military censorship and the arrests: Google books - Brazil in the Making By Carmen Nava EconomistBR 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is reliable sources in Portuguese (and the English Wikipedia doesn't need all sources in English). I protest about copy-and-paste commentary presented above. To be stub is not a sin. There is countless stubs in the Wikipedia (and articles about English-related things), but is not reason for deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a disservice to his history, it doesn't mention the arrests, the persecution, his work, nothing. Now if it were 2 months old, no problem, but it is 3 years old. It's better to delete the article and when someone has the time, the information and the sources re-create it. Big deal. EconomistBR 03:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spurious nomination. Subject has been exhibited in major national art gallery, and clearly meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. Extend article content and add cited sources. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated above. We don't delete articles to punish members of projects. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article itself lack of sources, several independent reliable sources prove he's actually notable: [8], [9] and [10]. Tosqueira (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 40/CHR panel[edit]

These are all just lists of stations that report to various R&R charts. Trivial information, largely unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they all appear to be verifiable at the source - [11]. No particular opinion on delete or keep. Mlaffs (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Mlaffs (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite copyright concerns from Radio & Records and just a list of random stations when it comes down to it. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all copyright concerns. These articles are essentially copies of webpages such as this and I dont see how they could be anything more than hyperlinked versions of that. While this information will make an excellent reference for WP:WPRS--Rtphokie (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as while these lists are easily verified that's only true because they're little more than oft out-of-date copies of the original lists from the website cited above. - Dravecky (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per RT above, just more copies of lists that don't need to be. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Star[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:PORNBIO (agreed) JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jago Del Piero[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fourteen-year old little boy can hardly meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:FOOTYN, WP:N and so on... I wish him to see his name back here in the next five years, but now it's quite too early. --Angelo (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. May never make it, not yet notable--ClubOranje^Talk 08:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BanRay 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Reports of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq pertaining to Joseph C. Wilson's Niger trip[edit]

Delete. Trivial topic included as a POV fork of articles that already exist (e.g. Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, Joseph C. Wilson; Plame affair) for soapboxing reasons. There's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already in one of the other articles. csloat (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, examining the other article(s) I am forced to agree. Dynablaster (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely important and historic topic with numerous independent and reliable references having substantial coverage of the topic. Edison (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you clarify? I'm having trouble understanding what is "important and historic" about this that isn't already covered in the other articles. I don't deny that the general topic of Wilson's trip is important, but why do we need a separate page for cherry picking bits of a report that happen to mention that trip? csloat (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. McWomble (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant POV fork at an incredibly implausible name. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. OR, no notability, unsourced, everything. If anyone would like the deleted content to have a go at making a decent - sourced! - "List of...." article, please contact me. Otherwise the correct place for these is at the Zoids Wikia, which is where the information already is. Black Kite 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Jerk[edit]

These elements of the Zoids series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and extremely trivial statistics and model and toy details. TTN (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages

TTN (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I think the toy details in all these articles are salvageable. Why didn't you suggest merging the verifiable info on all these articles in a list. To have a list of characters that are notable in the fictional universe you don't need too strict sources because they don't need to be independently notable - instead such a list would allow for that to fall upon the article on the main universe of Zoids. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all so people can work on the appropriate merges. This sort of nomination is not helpful.
Keep all, then work on appropriate merges to a list.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible way to make a meaningful list out of these. There are very few important ones throughout the different pieces of media, and those pieces of media already cover them or have the means to cover them in enough detail. TTN (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that--you say there is media available that provides the material to identify them, so the list will have content. How will it not be meaningful? We don't avoid covering in Wikipedia things that are covered elsewhere, and that seem s to be your argument. DGG (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are maybe five or six that actually play a role instead of acting as a generic military vehicle like most of the others (Liger Zero and Blade Liger being the only ones I can think of). I plan on merging or redirecting those to their proper series after the rest are removed. TTN (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there is little sense in deleting this content. Reducing in universe content and merging most to a list? Yes, but AFD is not the proper place to bring that up. I would be in favor of evaluating the individuals articles, and discussing which should be kept, and which should be merged.kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I don't see any difference from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías. Non notable characters, unreferenced information, unverified specifications, etc. etc. It reminds me of WP:POKEMON. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/merge all to List of Zoids. Experience has shown that not even the highly notable Pokémon franchise can support individual character articles on a grand scale (WP:NOTABILITY issues). These articles also seem like a weird mix of of plot and a sales catalog, both part of WP:NOT, and I do not see a possibility to improve them to an encyclopedic standard. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki all to the Zoids Wikia if they are not already listed there. I agree with the nom on the reasons why they don't belong here, but we shouldn't throw everything into the proverbial furnace when we can find another home out there for them; in this case, there is already a portion of Wikia dedicated to the Zoids. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they've already been moved over there. The articles I looked at match their counterparts here. TTN (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Since everything is already on Zoids Wikia and they fail notability in Wikipedia. -- nips (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Redirect to "List of Zoids". Admittedly, a lot of these articles are an utter mess. I vote to keep articles for the few that actually ARE notable, such as Gojulas and Liger Zero, (a model kit of the former is even on display at the British Natural History Museum in their "Dinosaurs in popular culture" exhibit!) which play story relavent roles in a broad spectrum of fiction readily avaliable to english speaking audiences. The rest (such as background Zoids like the Helcat and Guysak, Japan only Zoids such as the Rainbow Jerk and Murasame Liger, and Zoids that only appeared as toys such as the D.A. Lizards)) we can fork into a list.

K00bine (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above Dloh cierekim 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per Sguereka; the comparison to Pokemon is especially apt. Nifboy (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as original research. 98.247.30.19 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:N (and WP:V). No prejudice against people who want to WP:USERFY articles that they have a good faith belief can be improved, despite this lack of sources. Articles can be re-created when issues are addressed. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch martin[edit]

No reliable third-party references to establish notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —Bkell (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Not a word anywhere about this "popular" drink... except wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a search brought up NO other source, I tagged the article for a G3 speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor[edit]

This is a confusing article that does not demonstrate a clear knowledge of "Best Actor" vs. "Best Supporting Actor", and is redundant to many other articles, lists and categories. It adds nothing to the understanding of Academy Awards winners that isn't included elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already better covered in existing pages. Mgm|^(talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An extreme violation of WP:MOSFLAGS, and unneeded for a redirect because there's only one type of Academy Awards. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's nicely set up, but the exact year the actors won is missing and the flags (representing the state the actor is from?) are just confusing. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Obviously a lot of work and good intentions have gone into this, but it's overly decorated with flags, it's not clear when the nominations and wins took place, because they are jumbled into groups by decade. It's not random but it certainly looks random. The individual Academy Award articles show all nominations/wins clearly and within context. The purpose of this article is unclear. Rossrs (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears this is the article Academy Award for Best Actor, limited to Americans. I'm sure the information is verifiable. And the critieria is clear. I don't think the flags are a reason to delete this. I could imagine someone wanting to know which actors from a given state have been nominated for an Oscar. In the event this article is deleted, readers could do a search for +incategory:"American film actors" +incategory:"Best Actor Academy Award winners", or, for a certain state, +incategory:"California actors" +incategory:"Best Actor Academy Award winners". I see there's no category for Academy Award nominees though. Perhaps something will eventually come out of Wikipedia:Category intersection. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I really don't see a problem with having this list. --Pixelface (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —miniluv (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to my comments above, but this should be one big table, with the decade as a field, so readers could sort it by state, actor, film, etc. --Pixelface (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Port Charles, New York (fictional city)#World Security Bureau. Sandstein 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Security Bureau[edit]

This fictional intelligence agency has no notability outside the show. According to WP:FICTION spin off articles should be avoided if there is no serious reason to be created and this is not the case. A google search for "World Security Bureau" (with quotes) gives nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, my search, with quotes and general hospital added yields 273 hits. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked many of the references you give and they are all some references to the plot of General Hospital. Some of the them are like "this guy, who works in WSB blah blah blah". I see nothing of importance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found mention the organization in passing. None of it is referenced and there seems to be bits of Original Research sprinkled throughout. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate place. Or possibly keep, if some of those refs pan out--I'm not an expert on the show. As an important plot element, it just needs V on the information presented, not notability, when used as part of an article. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad case of OR (too many comparisons and speculation), and I am not familiar with the show to decide what is not OR, so better start new (with sources) if need be. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau which I've just created. It does, however, need a strong clean-up to remove a lot of OR. References I picked up mention it only in passing - there is not enough notability for a stand-alone article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is that material exists to improve the article. TravellingCari 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus at the Edge of Time.[edit]

Non-notable book - fails WP:BK. ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the text in the article, except the opening sentence fragment, was a copyvio (linking to the Web page that the material was copy/pasted from doesn't prevent it from being so). I've therefore deleted it. No opinion on the AfD at this time—save that if the article is kept, the period in the title has to go. Deor (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per this, this, and this. Schuym1 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also this. Schuym1 (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will add a summary section and a reception section. Schuym1 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have improved the article. Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Good work but it still does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. – ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does. It has significant coverage in rerliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Your definition of significant is obviously different from mine. – ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has four reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book has received notice as demonstrated in the reviews found y User:Schuym1. There's also a capsule review here. Taken in total, there's multiple reviews of the book, and notability is established. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added another cited reliable source review from Booklist to the article providing more critical commentary. This article easily passes WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privilege Jet Airlines[edit]

Small charter airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per A7, so nominated (I didn't see a previous speedy nom in the history) ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the previous A7 CSD on these three, the admin who reversed the A7 speedy did not restore the actual CSD tag edits. I'm the first admin, who executed the original A7 speedy that was then reversed. I left these alone for a while, to give the original nominator time to AFD or DRV the situation. Today I found them again, and AFDed them myself. Given that they have been A7 deleted by one admin (me), and restored by another, and the second has stood by his point that they are not A7 qualified, I really do not think it wise for them to be A7ed again, short of DRVing the whole thing. AFD seemed easier at this point than a DRV fight over the original A7/reversal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just now restored the original CSD edits, so the full history can be seen. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:TexasAndroid#Airline notablility for some previous discussion on this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined but weak delete - Since this has been so convoluted, I'm declining speedy and am going to let this AfD ride out. In general, I would !vote "delete" on a charter airline like this, but as they are one of the few remaining -500 operators, there might be some notability associated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Website is "under construction" and a list of email addresses. Has one airplane, no listed IATA, ICAO or callsign. No media sources given in article, and the ch-aviation.ch link given in the article lists their aircraft as stored. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ICAO or IATA code and appears to have only operated a few ad-hoc charters and the one tristar aircraft is now leased out to an airline in the Central African Republic. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please be aware of the status of Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) and Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation)#Airlines. The former is inactive and the latter is only a proposed guideline for discussion. WP:AVIMOS#NOTE is, as I can tell, an essay that is the closest thing we have to a current guideline.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no consensus here to delete, unanimous keep apart from nom. All based in good reasons. TravellingCari 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star[edit]

This is a list of plot elements that does establish notability independent of its series. The main article already has an overview of the of the actual topic of the fighting styles, so this is just extremely unnecessary. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and trivial details. TTN (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also lists of minor techniques that do not need coverage past the brief summary already in the main article:

TTN (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Harmil's arguments in the previous Afd. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Harmil. The Japanese version of this article is quite expansive and is a heavily substantial topic in Japanese pop-culture fiction. The martial arts are the focal points of the series and is not simply just plot points. The potential for this article is clearly there, and is in need of expansion, not pointless (yet easy work, as always) deletion.SashaNein (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list, per the above. Merge/Redirect the two styles to the list -- how much (if any) additional information to copy during the process, I leave to editors who know the series better. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne digital television technical parameters[edit]

This seems like WP:NOT material for some reason...but I'm not sure. ViperSnake151 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Looks like WP:NOTDIR, possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE, ~~but no judgment yet~~. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what specific parts of WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply (Please specify). An analogy of this article is the periodic table. BUT I am happy to be out-voted as the article shows little interest anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E! (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE Michellecrisp (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTHOWTO. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per snow TravellingCari 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninja (2009 film)[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources confirm shooting to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF and agree with nominator about recreation. Creation of this article was too much of a knee-jerk after announcement of this planned film; if it does begin, never a guarantee in the film industry, recreate the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 23:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:NFF. - Longhair\^talk 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is premature until filming commences. WWGB (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: shooting hasn't begun. Cliff smith ^talk 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -— Longhair\^talk 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too premature, filming has yet to begin even JBsupreme (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. G12: Blatant copyright infringement by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl Adventure![edit]

This manga does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE or WP:NB. I've done a fairly thorough trawl through the results of a Google Search, but have not find multiple, reliable sources, that provide significant coverage of the manga. There are a number of book sellers, web forums, and various websites that make a brief mention of it, but the nearest I came to finding sources that provide significant coverage are the following sites: [12], [13], that appears to be ordinary blogs, and so probably not reliable sources.

Also, the article seems to have been copied from this article: [14]. A speedy deletion as a copyright violation was refused, which is why I am listing the article here, on the grounds that articles from Bulbapedia are available under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic licence, but as I understand it, that isn't compatible with the GFDL, due to the non-comercial clause. Silverfish (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Silverfish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Portraits in Science[edit]

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to put in a comment in the template, so here goes. This is merely a list of books. This fails WP:NOTE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per below. Admittedly I know bupkis about this subject. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides being WP:Trolled by Orange Marlin, this list is obviously notable (check the two external links and do a check on google scholar and google books) and should not have been put to AFD per WP:BITE. Also Orange Marlin did obviously didn't check WP:BEFORE in addition to all this other nonsense. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was this trolling? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not just a list of books. They're all part of the same series, and if the name Oxford is attached, chances are it is notable. Should warrant further investigation. (If kept this should go in a table format). Also the lack of context isn't hard to fix, a cursory Google search makes it easy for any editor to provide context. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – sofixit. What makes this series of books notable? We don't devote an article to every series a publisher puts out, even the OUP. The article has to demonstrate why this particular series is notable, using reliable third party sources. And having looked at the two links, they barely mention the series, and do nothing to establish notability. . dave souza, talk 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC) [see below for delete comment after detailed investigation dave souza, talk 15:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) ][reply]
Delete its just a list. Oxford does not make it notable, we'll end up with pages for every publishes series at this rate. --Snowded TALK 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) No claims of notability. The 2 external links are for a book review of one of the books, not the series. The other, again, is a reference to one of the books. But in this context, even if it were about the series, it would not be notable. Doing a Google search trying will obviously give many false positives, and is not a reliable method of establishing notability in this case. - Atmoz (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless RS is found establishing notability of this series per WP:NOTE. If individual books or authors are notable, they should have their own entries - the series should onlt have an article if a significant number of the books are notable or it itself is notable per WP:NOTE. Oxford and author notabilities are separate. Verbal chat 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Several individual books seem to have been reviewed in School Library Journal and Booklist. [15] Better than nothing. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor is notable, but how is a book series written by others for kid? notable in itself? Are the individual books notable? ... don't think so. Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm, Zagelojo. Edward321 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant series. DGG (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NN. List is not notable; each book in themselves are not notable, notability hasn't been established in third party sources. Shot info (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I've now spent some time searching, and have found no evidence that the whole series is edited by the Harvard University astronomer Owen Gingerich, or that the series is in any way notable. Gingerich is listed in the Media Review reference as "General Editor", but OUP don't note any editors for the other books in their web pages I've looked at. OUP produces an immense number of series, just follow the links in the sidebar to the left of this list. Remember Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable lists of series of books by publishers. What's still needed is a reliable third party source asserting that this is notable as a series, and my research found nothing. dave souza, talk 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC) clarified/grmr 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a reasonably significant series. That the series is meant for kids should not be an issue. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on notability Individual books in the series have been well reviewed in important journals: including, but not limited to, Isis (journal), The Quarterly Review of Biology, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, and many others. The exact phrase has about 18,000 google hits and every library seems to carry the series and many respectable organizations recommend one or more books on their websites. I doubt if the works will be cited elsewhere (!) but it seems notable enough to me. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on notability The series definitely meets the threshold standard per WP:Notability (books). Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. Given that the series has been reviewed in scholarly journals, I would rate the series as being at least above the threshold. Do note that scientific books for children are unlikely to be cited elsewhere and the only way of determining the value of the book (or, in this case, the series) is to see how they have been reviewed. The number of reviews and the quality of reviews matters. There are many reviews reviews are almost uniformly favorable. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above it's just a list, we might as well include listings of every series of books written by every author.Paste (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it's by Oxford doesn't mean that the series is notable--and why should it be? It's a list of short biographies--what's the point of listing them? And it's not even a pretty list, it looks like it came out of the sandbox too soon. A review was mentioned: yes, the article lists a review, and it's a review of the book on Faraday, NOT a review of the series, and that's what the article is about, supposedly. RegentsPark, DGG, and others, with all due respect, the burden is to prove that the series is notable, and I have not seen any of the proponents of this article provide a solid reason to believe that. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're working with an unnecessarily strict interpretation of WP:N. If specific parts of the series have been discussed in independent sources (there are other reviews besides that of the Faraday book, as mentioned above), then why shouldn't the series as a whole be considered notable? I agree that the list is a work in progress, but that's the case with the vast majority of articles at Wikipedia. We don't delete things because their incomplete. Each book in the series is in hundreds of libraries [16], [17], [18], [19], etc, so I don't see a good common sense reason not to have an article about them. Zagalejo^^^ 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, libraries have lots of books, and there are multiple book reviews for most books. Taking this logic, we can similarly justify articles on all of the series of books produced by publishers – OUP alone has many series. Just from "Oxford" series links, we could have a huge number of articles with the same sort of information, including but not limited to Oxford English Literary History, Oxford English Texts, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, Oxford Hispanic Studies, Oxford Portraits, Oxford Approaches to Classical Literature, Oxford Books of Prose, Oxford Studies in Social History, ... etc, etc. . . . Sources are needed to verify that any particular series is in some way notable, otherwise the argument you present is original research. . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) link corrected to the one meant originally, dave souza, talk 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see what's so terrible about having articles on all those book series. We're not talking about Gundam characters here. Zagalejo^^^ 06:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage from independent reliable sources = nothing for us to write. Also, notability is not inherited. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our primary mission is to collect and develop educational content and this article clearly qualifies. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per SNOW. Tiptoety ^talk 02:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Avatar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable web forum. No sources meeting WP:RS; no real assertion of notability. A bit promotional. Tan | 39 19:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The result of the first discussion in 2006 (linked to the right) was a resounding delete. Tan | 39 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable forum with no reliable sources to be found. - auburnpilot talk 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 2006 discussion, above mentioned reliable sources problems and notability concerns. CorpITGuy (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is clear to me that the site's management are not interested in allowing an unbiased reporting of the facts, and given the difficulty of verifying sources and the level of notability of the site, the amount of effort required to outpace their managements attempts to whitewash the article should it be allowed to continue are too much to be worth it. --66.220.104.149 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strongest delete and a site made from a schism of this one less than two months ago, Colony of Gamers should never have been kept and should be deleted. Sticky Parkin 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another website.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and zay zay (just another website) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody JBsupreme (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Tone 14:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Muirhead[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a professional game. His status as an assistant coach and scout does not confer notability either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PERNOM. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom.--ClubOranje^Talk 08:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Technology Industry Association[edit]

Delete for non-notability. Sounds like one of those dime-a-dozen "organizations" that is everywhere. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly non-notable; IMHO should have been speedied. ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There's a pretty high number of google news hits, but almost all are press releases. After looking through them for a while I have only found name drops, mentions of galas and awards, but no significant coverage.
Weak Delete, seems to fail WP:NOTE. --Amalthea^Talk 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Delete since the mention in the BC Stats government paper seems to imply some notability, even though it too is little more than a name drop. --Amalthea^Talk 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was added because the it is a large organization in British Columbia which acts as an advocate for over 2,100 member companies encompassing a number of technology sectors (facts which should have been initially included in the article, and have now been added). With the technology sector as a whole growing significantly in the province, I thought such an organization was worth noting – I have since added links to industry stats. I was hoping others could flesh the article out even further after the initial post. For the record, I am not affiliated with BCTIA, but the company for which I work is one of its members. Danderson68 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) — Danderson68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above user is also the page's author. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was answering an invitation from Arbiteroftruth to explain why the article was posted. I had thought it was clear that I was the initial author. This was my first crack at posting and I'm fine with whatever majority decision is reached. Danderson68 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. --Amalthea^Talk 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Merge/Redirect into Information Technology Association of Canada -- this is a regional offshoot of a national trade group. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This British Columbia Technology association has 2100+ BC hi-tech company members. This is the primary association in the entire province for technology. They provide workshops, breakfasts, luncheons, etc for hi-tech management and executives, the organization is recognized by the provincial (and federal) government as the primary source for what is occuring in the tech industry. This is NOT a regional offshoot of a national trade group. DustyRain (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional References to consider - also note there are 17,000+ references to BCTIA on Google
Keep. About 40 non-trivial Gnews hits. McWomble (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you look at them again please? Almost all of them are press releases, and all reliable sources I found only had trivial coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after going through the 37 gnews hits, and disregarding the half that are press releases, there seem to be multiple article that cover the organization in a non-trivial fashion, though it is difficult to say due to the mostly pay-per-view hits. But with that amount of coverage, notability is established per WP:ORG. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- You said those are pay-per-view hits. That can't be said as establishing notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a specific one that seems to cover the topic in detail? PPV or not, that might be enough for WP:NOTE. --Amalthea^Talk 13:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomOo7565 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the general notability guideline. Although not from Google or Google News, the following articles are about this organization and/or the awards they hand out, and are not press releases:
- Shaw, Gillian. "Dazzling days: B.C.'s high-tech leaders are in an upbeat, celebratory mood as they hand out awards", The Vancouver Sun, 2001-06-14, p. E1.
- "BC TIA works hard to affect change, unify industry", The Globe and Mail, 2000-12-11, p. T1.
- Caulfield, Peter (July 23, 1999). "B.C. TIA honours high-tech success stories", Computer Dealer News 15 (28): 16.
- Caulfield, Peter (July 27, 1998). "B.C. high-tech firms face number of challenges", Computing Canada 24 (28): 13–14. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily of the University of Washington[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a nonnotable student publication at the University of Washington. The paper is part of the larger Associated Students of the University of Washington, so a small amount of material could be merged there. As it is, the article serves as an advertisement and/or to stroke the egos of one or more student editors. The awards they've won are nonnotable or purely incidental and are not worth dedicating an entire article for one sentence about an apple award they won once. The rest of the article is pure original research or traces back to a single source on the paper's own webpage. No other third party sources exist. All OR (and irrelevant text about bureaucratic oversight) removed, this article would be reduced to a few sentences about their history and one about the awards they won. Again, this could be easily compressed to a subcategory under ASUW. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I may be missing something here, but how is the school's indepedent Daily student newspaper "part of the larger ASUW" (student government)? I'm not seeing any connection. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close debate. ~~No notability on its own doesn't mean the publication isn't notable within the context of the university.~~ If it's not related to the student union, it can be merged in University of Washington. In either case, there's no case for deletion and merges are not supposed to be discussed here. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards establish notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Mergers are discussed at AFD as a means of preventing unnecessary article forks. The Daily is run by and is organized within the ASUW. Its funding and its oversight are maintained by that organization. It's a registered student organization with the ASUW and so would fit within those sections of that article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason that two articles can't exist, one for the student government, and one for the campus newspaper published at the University of Washington. As the article notes, the newspaper has won awards. However, I would also point out that in universities with their own journalism program (at UW, the Department of Communications, which has a masters and doctoral program), the newspaper is part of the preparation for a career in the field. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and close debate It's a daily indepedent newspaper at a major State university. Deletion should not be considered. Just to make sure, I see that many other similiar newspapers have articles, as expected 1, 2, 3 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not solid reasoning. The fact other articles exist doesn't mean they (or this one) should.-Mgm|^(talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily is nowhere near the caliber or history of those papers. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The awards are impressive, and sufficient to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are actually unimpressive. They're put there to justify writing an article around them, but they don't give any credibility or notability to the paper itself. The apple award itself is a nonnotable journalistic achievement for small college tabloids within a very small region. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for other principal newspapers of major newspapers of major universities. And the awards meet all possible requirements. for notability, however, interpreted--I reminded the nom. about the awards when I deprodded the article, but it was brought here anyway. DGG (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards aren't notable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And only the least among them is sourced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for the 2007 Apple Award.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a principal newspaper of a major university, which has received substantial awards. Clearly meets WP:N requirements. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the only major student newspaper at the University. Definitely falls under WP:N given its wide readership (even if only for the sudoku). Dgtljunglist (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major newspaper of the university with over 100 year history with several notable awards. It's difficult to quickly find sources on Google as the newspaper itself is a GoogleNews source but I think we should have an article and this is a reasonable start. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deletion under criteria G12; text was copied from goturkey.com Marasmusine (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Travel[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a how-to. ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not a suitable article for Wikipedia. Paste (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Travel Turkey, identical article which I've just tagged for speedy deletion per G12 copyvio. Can this not go the same way? Eve Hall (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball Keep. NAC, SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrokinesis[edit]

This article serves very little purpose; it is essentially a list of characters, and as such is a duplicate of information found here: List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. This concept seems to be fairly well written about, and the list can be removed. I don't know much about it though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely removed the list of characters from the article. It was a duplicate of List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although consider renaming to avoid a possible neologism (for the same reason the list article isn't List of pryokinetic characters: see here). Pyromancy and pyrokinesis are common tropes in fiction and an analysis of same could be found. Powers ^T 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as an article on the psychic ability and I don't think its a neologism, but the standard word, . DGG (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or weak merge to Psychokinesis). Among paranormal circles this appears to be a commonly used term. The article has been cleaned up quite a bit, and could stand for a lot of expansion, particularly regarding claimants of pyrokinesis in the real world, but I do not consider these reasons to delete. Psychokinesis would be a valid place to merge, as it is considered a subset going by the definition chosen in the psychokinesis article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the list of characters removed, it can go back to being an article on the psychic ability for which plenty of references exist to flesh it out. It's definitely not a neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable psychic ability. Strong potential for verifiable and reliable sources.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. If someone feels as though it would be most appropriate to merge these articles as proposed, please take up that argument on the talk page of the articles (preferably one talk page, with notes on the related pages). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

I am nominating the entire Desperate Housewives Season 1. It Breaks WP:Episode which states individual episodes are usually not WP:Notable, and they don't qualify in any of these cases. All relevant information is already included in Desperate Housewives, List of Desperate Housewives episodes and Desperate Housewives (season 1) where it belongs. If this passes the other episodes of the remaining seasons will be nominated also. KelleyCook (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following season 1 episodes are similarly nominated:

Delete all for failing notability guidelines. None of these are sourced, nor are they likely to ever be. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Desperate Housewives (season 1) -- only television episodes that have been extensively written about and analyzed should be retained as individual articles. Powers ^T 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable (per guidelines) and unsourced. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all. Only episodes that have been reported on by third-party sources should have their own article. This article (main nominee) contains quotes (WikiQuote) and Trivia (should be included in text) which are generally believed to not be suitable. The rest is not referenced, not even the guest appearances. If the info isn't referenced when it is in list form, that list should go too. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. And merge properly. The guidelines for episodes give an indication of how much plot is necessary for comprehension, and the amount in the present merged lists is totally inadequate. It's the amount for the teaser in a TV guide, not an encyclopedia, which should actually provide information about the episode. DGG (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. Still useful as somewhat likely search terms or dab links. If someone feels it's easier to merge than to expand without merging, he is free to use the page histories. Some episode articles (at least the pilot) may theoretically be able to become a GA, so keeping the page histories around wouldn't be bad either. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect, or possibly keep. These episode titles are at least plausible search terms, which means redirection is an acceptable alternative to deletion, and as such, per policy, deletion is unwarranted. The nominator says this set of articles "Breaks WP:Episode" and yet the nominator has broken WP:Episode by ignoring that guideline's very advice to "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research". Why? The fact that these episodes are all available on DVD, some with commentary, shows that information in these articles is not "completely unverifiable", and there are even published books covering these episodes, which indicates that there may be enough reliable source material even for individual articles to satisfy notability. DHowell (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pretty certain there is not a book available about the individual episode. And "the fact that these episodes are all available on DVD, some with commentary, shows that information in these articles is not 'completely unverifiable'" could be applied to 95+% of the television series ever produced, so is specious arguement. Bottom line: the series is notable, a season synopsis is notable, but each episode so far has not been notable. -- KelleyCook (talk)

Our notability guideline does not require there to be an entire book about a specific topic for it to have an article, only that there be significant coverage. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Also, your claim that "95+%" of TV series have DVDs with commentary available is easily disproved by heading over to TVShowsOnDVD.com. Browsing the first 100 TV shows listed in the A's, I found that only 15 are available on DVD—sorry, but 15% is far, far less than that "95+%" figure you pulled out of thin air. And this particular show is not just one among the many TV shows even available on DVD—this is one of the most popular shows of the decade, consistently among the top 10 most watched shows in America since it began. Each episode has been watched by more people than the entire population of Switzerland. By the way, you still haven't explained why you are ignoring WP:Episode's guidance to avoid listing articles like these for AfD. DHowell (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on my authority. Arrogant Dutchbag 20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrogant Dutchbag (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tenchi Muyo! cast members[edit]

Voice actor lists, many of which were originally listified from categories by bots several years ago, are generally discouraged in favor of the information being presented in character lists and individual character articles, and there is past consensus to delete these articles - see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neon Genesis Evangelion voice actors or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon voice actors. —Dino guy 1000 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my previous rational in the other two AFDs. The voice actor categories were originally deleted because they were viewed as over categorization. The voice actors are also incorporated into the character summaries either in character lists or articles, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections, making this list redundant and of no value. --Farix (Talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant information covered in character list and past consensus. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). consensus is the content would be better located within the article about the party. It's under the re-direct for whoever wants to add it. TravellingCari 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Knapp[edit]

This article cites no sources that aren't published by the subject or his organization; the only related result on a Google News Archive search [20] is a press release. So, per WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") we need actual evidence that third party sources exist, or we cannot have an article on this person. Rividian (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Ballot Access News confirms that the Boston Tea Party is on the ballot in three states. Knapp is the party's official VP nominee. He is on the ticket of a notable (albeit barely) political party, which makes him notable. Better sources would be desirable, however.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here is an article from Ballot Access News verifying that he is the VP candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if "Ballot Access News" is a reliable source, but it only mentions Knapp once in passing. These two sources are a start for an article on the Boston Tea Party, but they're hardly enough to write a meaningful biography from. Sources about a biographical subject aren't just desirable, they're required. --Rividian (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, his name should be a likely candidate for redirection to an article about the party (and merging any verifiable info). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd be fine with redirection... but this is probably a case where the redirect would just get undone without the consensus of an AFD. --Rividian (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can always request protection if people ignore consensus to redirect. We should let this discussion run its course to get consensus to do this. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would consider Ballot Access News a very reliable source. Its editor, Richard Winger, is often cited in mainstream news articles about minor party politics and ballot access issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with, or redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). I withdraw my earlier motion to "keep" based on the nominator's clarified arguments about the flimsy sources being insufficient for bio article. Seeing that Knapp is the founder, as well as VP candidate of the party (which seems to have passed the notability test) should justify a merge or redirect, however. Support Mgm's suggestion about protection if users ignore consensus to redirect.--JayJasper (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Boston Tea Party article. If he becomes more notable at a later date, the article can always be spun out again.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into deleted article Boston Tea Party (political party); i.e., delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Boston Tea Party (political party) has been deleted before, it has since been re-created and is currently the subject of a deletion review. Merging this article into the article about the party may be a good idea, but it won't necessarily result in deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shaman King. Black Kite 11:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over Soul[edit]

Unnotable fictional element from Shaman King. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Nothing but plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason. This is the the next "level" up from the Over Soul, and it is purely a technique in the anime, a secondary work.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a Google News search shows nothing good, while a Google search shows nothing as well. Same for Giant Over Soul, the best I could find was this, but still not a reliable source. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere Appears to be a notable element of the series. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series article. There are not enough sources (reliable or otherwise) to merge any of the material. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (no merge) due to lack of sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why cause extra work for admins by deleting before creating the redirect, when the redirect can be done immediately? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eras of rock[edit]

Speedy declined for being wrongly requested as A7. Goes to AfD as OR, unreferenced, all or most of it covered at Rock and roll Alexf^(talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not Merge. Most of the information isn't that bad, I think the era divisions are probably more accurate than the ones currently on the rock music article. If we could find a few sources and perhaps change the title this article could be fixed up and be just fine. Zazaban (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One person's view only, no consensus as to "eras", not encyclopaedic, ~~appears US-centred~~. Granted the Rock music article needs much improvement, but spun-off articles like this are not the way forward. Good bits from this article can be added to the main article through agreement on that aricle's talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~On the rock music article we could do like over on indie rock or alt rock and have a split between american and british history. We use this as a template for dividing up an american history section.~~ Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US-centred question is not my main concern, and in fact re-reading the Eras article I think it shows a reasonable balance so I've deleted that comment. And, across rock music as a whole, there are so many fertile US-UK (etc) exchanges that I'm not sure that sort of split is very workable. My main concern with the article is that there hasn't been any discussion of what these "eras" should be, and I'm not aware of a clear critical consensus. And anyway, why is it necessary, when what is needed are referenced and agreed improvements to the main article (Rock music) which is sub-divided into "eras" or at least sub-genres anyway? Unnecessary spin-off articles like this simply sow confusion and distract from improving the articles that most readers actually look at - and after all we are aiming to inform readers in my view, not boost editors' egos. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Please disregard my above comment. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article appears to be a poorly sourced content fork of information that already makes up the main body of the article Rock music. An article on the history of rock music would probably be an appropriate spin out of the main article if it was improved and expanded but as it stands all the content of this article seems to be better presented elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the concept of the article is a good one, there's simply not enough sourcing here using sources recognized by Wikipedia (YouTube?), and this comes off too much on the side of WP:OR. This is the only place I have ever seen reference to an "Emo Era" for example; Emo genre, yes, but not an era. 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The opinion of one person or a group of people, even informed opinions, are still opinions, and no matter how many sources are found for individual statements, naming and defining eras of rock is original synthesis. Certainly, there have been book and magazine authors who have given some thought about the history of rock music, although it would be expected that those authors would disagree on certain points. Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

yeah ur gay if u read this.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.11.200 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izotope[edit]

This article appears to be an advertisement, and it is not clear whether the company meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added several references from reliable sources. More can be found here, although that search will also bring up some press releases. I think notability is now established. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article certainly should be improved but it is not overt advertising and reliable sourcing upon which a verifiable article could be written seem to exist. After a quick search I found several sources (examples [21], [22], [23]) that have provided coverage of the company and its products and I think it is likely that there is more out there. Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have moved the article from "Izotope" to "IZotope" (and added the {{lowercase}} template) in line with the companies name. Guest9999 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the added sources, I see no reason to delete this entry. (But please do something about the layout...) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to We've Got a Fuzzbox and We're Gonna Use It. and merge. The article has been redirected; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant and verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vix and the Kix[edit]

48 ghits when quote marks are used, does this indicate notability, also this article does not indicate notability in any shape or form Jay Pegg (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside of having a member of another band, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Information should be pared down and added to article on We've Got a Fuzzbox and We're Gonna Use It. Jeremiah (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I've moved the first paragraph of this article (with minor editing) to the article on We've Got a Fuzzbox.... Jeremiah (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The band does meet the basic guideline of Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 6: "Contains at least one notable musician". However the band is not yet notable enough in itself and as the Fuzzbox article already contains information on Vix and The Kix merging it is somewhat pointless. A redirect would be better and fits into the rest of Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 6: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect. It satisfies MUSIC criterion number 6, so there's no valid reason for deletion within policy. I would prefer a keep. The referencing may be mangled, but there are reliable refs in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite 09:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Book of Interpretation of Dreams[edit]

This article consists of merely the title of the book, its author, and its list of 59 chapters. While Ibn Sirin is certainly a notable figure, I'm not sure that this book is, especially since I could not find any results for a book under this title by Sirin when I did a Google search. There is a book by Sigmund Freud with the same title, but it does not seem to be related in anyway. Because I have not been able to find any sources on this title, I do not believe it is notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, Freud's Interpretation of Dreams is the classic, the original, in the genre, if you will. This, I can't make heads or tails of. I'll assume that the title in the footnote is the book that talks about that book--but that's second-hand, not good enough, and the main article on Ibn Sirin doesn't add to it. Besides, a list of chapter headings is irrelevant. So, if there had been anything of substance, it should be merged; since there isn't, I'm all for deletion. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the usual titles for English translations are either "Interpretation of Dreams" or "Dreams and Interpretations" The Arabic is تفسير الأحلام الكبرى المسمى منتخب الكلام في تفسير الأحلام، (Tafsīr al-aḥlām al-kabīr al-musammá Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām), according to WorldCat. The article on the author describes the book and gives references to some of the many works on it in English--I'm sure there's an even wider literature in Arabic. It seems from the article that the man is noted for other things as well, but that this is by far is best known thing about him. So the question is a possible merger. However, I see from the article on the man that the current view is that it may not actually be of his authorship. so, since the article on him needs total rewriting for coherence and to eliminate apparent copypaste, anyway, best to transfer the references here and develop the article. Freud of course is a different tradition. DGG (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Ibn Sirin is an important figure in the history of oneiromancy, and this is the chief work attributed to him. Obviously a more meaningful synopsis than a chapter heading listing might be desirable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article leaves a lot to be desired, like some context explaining that this was written in the 8th Century. However, it appears that Ibn Sirin's book is still referred to more than 12 centuries later [24]. The book itself is notable enough to be its own article, and the list of chapters is consistent with a discussion of the subject. I think that there's room for this one to be added to. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It leaves a lot to be desired, but AFD is not Cleanup. If it wasn't for Freud's title I would have suggested a redirect to Ibn Sirin. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:V, WP:NOTE and has good potential for expansion. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Peter Max Lawrence[edit]

The result was Keep. After sorting through this mess of an AFD it seems there is minimal reason to keep the article. The consensus is not firm either way in my judgment. The reliable sources are borderline but probably do rise to a sufficient level to make the decision to keep. When all aspects are considered we are better off to keep than to delete this one. JodyB_talk 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that this article be deleted for several reasons listed below: 1. I have a very strong suspicion that Peter Max Lawrence not only created this article, but has been the only one maintaining it. If you look at the history (administrators can see IP addresses) almost all the names listed there like WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Verdequete, Waitformyturn are probably linked to the same IP address. These "users" also have no userpages, and therefore, makes me think they are just aliases of Peter's to promote himself on Wikipedia. Almost -ALL- the links go to his own website and Paper Waster Press is also his company. Wikipedia is NOT a RESUME website. 2. Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn was the one who removed my initial request for deletion from this page. This is why I have now submitted it for debate by other Wikipedia users. I am sure I will find more aliases of Peter's on here defending himself, and would like honest Wikipedia users to intervene. 3. In the history section Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn also slanders a student at the San Francisco Art Institute by putting a link to his myspace page. I assume he is blaming this person for the problems he is experiencing on Wikipedia. He also has slandered other users who have made comments on this talk page under the name "Roberta Soltea" and wrote a lengthy open letter to one of the users about how "Roberta Soltea" is a real person. I removed that nonsense from the talk page. 4. Basically this article is causing a lot of problems on here and more importantly, it is completely, a self-made vanity article and should be deleted. Modestprotest (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Now that the article belongs to Wiki, can it be trimmed down and made encyclopedic? I did find a few sources [25][26][27][28][29], etal, that seem to suggest he does have a (minor) notability and that this article might be neutrally sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My main concern is that it seems like this article was written by Peter Max Lawrence himself, and is it not strongly discouraged within the Wikipedia community to do so? Just because there are some websites out there that mention his name, should any person with minor notability be allowed on Wikipedia? As long as they reference some third party article with their name in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestprotest (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the article is wiki's now. If his notability (minor) can be addressed neutrally, does it not improve wiki to keep it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but only if someone can find a review of the work somewhere. DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking at all the links provided further down by MQSchmidt, accepting those are the closest things to reviews that can be found, I continue to say, weak keep. DGG (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "real" Peter Max Lawrence has written a lengthy retort about what has been going on in this article. Seems pretty fishy and defensive. What do you guys think? Check it out for yourself on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Max_Lawrence Modestprotest (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]
Question: Based on his reply above, the "real" Peter asks that this article be removed. Do you think I should go ahead and just put the delete tag up again? Modestprotest (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....maybe in a few years, maybe never..Modernist (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) ...see new section below[reply]
Comment The more I think about this, the more it seems like a travesty, I changed my opinion to strong delete..Modernist (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information below - indicates this article is probably by and large, a hoax, at the best phony as a three dollar bill....it should be salted.Modernist (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→Comment: It is a travesty! This guy went to the SF Library (IP address trail) today just to avoid the sockpuppet case I opened to update his Wikipedia page. Can someone please just delete this already!?Modestprotest (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral He seems notable enough to me, although sources are lacking at this point. If it can be confirmed that the artist himself wants this deleted, then it should probably be deleted. He's young: it can be recreated in years to come. freshacconci talktalk 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Opened up a sock puppet case against Petermaxlawrence and his several aliases to avoid scrutiny in creating his own article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence Modestprotest (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]

Concern with Modestprotest: This seems to have been a fairly easy edit on a mostly uncontroversial matter. Why is it that one individual is making so many claims based on blind assumptions that revolve around several anonymous users including the accuser. If the artist still wants the page down after it has been brought up to compliance, that is their prerogative. I'm not a frequent user of this site and my edits may be imperfect. I would appreciate if a more avid user could clean up any mistakes.Neutralsutures (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutralsutures has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Dreadstar † 01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→Comment: That's pretty funny "Neutralsutures". "Why is it that one individual is making so many claims based on blind assumptions that revolve around several anonymous users including the accuser." Coming from an anonymous user like yourself. Pretty sure you are Peter Max Lawrence again because no one else has been updating his page but him, oh and also, you have no other history besides updating this article and just creating this account today. I'll have to add this name too to the open sockpuppet case.Modestprotest (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Sockpuppet case against Petermaxlawrence is now closed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence. All of the aliases WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Waitformyturn, and Neutralsutures show "the pattern of behavior and edits from the other accounts are sufficiently similar to establish disruptive sockpuppetry" and have been blocked indefinitely, including Petermaxlawrence. I hate to toot my own horn, but, turns out my suspicions were validated. And because of this action, can we now get back to the discussion of deleting this account?Modestprotest (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DISPUTING THESE ACCUSATIONS: Hello, there is no valid rationale for requesting the deletion of this bio page by anyone other than the artist. Inaccuracies can simply be, and appear to have already been, edited according to facts. Given my research into the minimum criteria for authorized biographies on Wikipedia, this profile meets all required standards. FACTS: Peter Max Lawrence is an internationally exhibited artist (contesting to what scale would be completely subjective), Peter Max Lawrence has work in numerous private collections, and works by Peter Max Lawrence have graced the covers of two Darren Smith novels, both of which have been ISBN coded, both of which are available via Amazon.com, Borders, and Barnes & Noble. This final point alone argues the validity of a biography for this particular artist, though other relevant points have been posted above by both Schmidt and freshacconci. REGARDING THE ISSUES OF IDENTITY, EDITING AND AUTHORSHIP: This entry has existed for over 18 months and has only been contested by a few individuals, i.e. less than five, among millions of daily Wikipedia users. Clearly, as they themselves have admitted, the parties contesting and complaining about this particular Wikipedia entry have some personal relationship to, and/or familiarity with the artist. This alone seems to present a conflict of interest with their position regarding the validity of this page. While it is obvious that actual persons have rights to edit and contest content on Wikipedia, it appears that the only person in this entire conflict arena who has readily identified themselves to date is in fact Peter Max Lawrence. Accusations regarding identity made by anonymous sources are, by both common sense standards and in any court of law, self-nullifying. CONCLUSION: Since some of the contesting parties have already admitted to some personal familiarity with both Peter Max Lawrence, artists cross-referenced on this page, and SFAI faculty, their actions seem to have no agenda other than that of a personal vendetta. For those who claim to hold such high regard for the standards set by Wikipedia, it's funny they would use the same forum to pursue such an agenda. I would recommend that this page, as well as sources and names cited on it, be checked by identifiable third parties with no relationship to the artist. I regret that I do not find myself in such a position, as I am a personal friend of the artist, posting here only to call attention to the absurdity of such complaints. Jonsajda (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user's first edit--Jonsajda (talk · contribs · logs) Dloh cierekim 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's so funny and telling how the comment after "Jonsajda" is by an admin that says "This is the user's first edit". Honestly, I don't care how notable or not notable Peter Max Lawrence is. The point is this: he has tried over and over again to circumvent Wikipedia policy by making fake names (sockpuppets) to disrupt this deletion arbitration and continue to make edits to his own article, which is HIGHLY discouraged by the Wikipedia community. The fact that all of these names have been blocked only prove that he is trying to go around rules that make Wikipedia a legitimate site. Oh and one more thing: I had to open up ANOTHER sockpuppet case against Petermaxlawrence with the name "Blastina" to point out efforts to edit the article... the same exact edits that were attempted by Neutralsutures, in which he got blocked for.Modestprotest (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really seem to be on a crusade here. This has lost all relevance to the subject at hand in this discussion- whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article here. He may or may not. I say "delete"; DGG says "keep." Which is pretty unsurprising. Your continual commenting about the evils of other editors in this discussion are not germane and are in fact disruptive. I would strongly suggest that you take a break from making irrelevant comments here. You don't care about the notability of the subject? Fine, please take it elsewhere. Dloh cierekim 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I got wrapped up in the sockpuppet cases and thought they should be mentioned here. I realize that I should not have done that and that it's irrelevant. Will take a break and let this process take its course.Modestprotest (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as meeting WP:BIO. No real assertion of meeting WP:BIO in the article. No adequate sourcing in the article. The links listed above by Schmidt are not significant, non-trivial coverage. No Google book or scholar hits. Has not recent significant recognition. Dloh cierekim 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that Modestprotest (talk · contribs · logs) has made no edits beyond this discussion and the related campaign against the sock puppets of Petermaxlawrence. Dloh cierekim 23:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I have already been accused of being an identity-alias by the anonymously posting Modestprotest, who has also gone so far as to open a sockpuppet case against me after my very first comment (which is absurd), I am going to go ahead and clear the record, as with my original post, that I am actually a real person, associate of the artist, and will make a claim here and now that Modestprotest seems to be nothing more than a vindictive student at the San Francisco Art Institute who has a personal grievance against Peter Max Lawrence and is using the Wikipedia site to pursue a personal attack against the artist. If this is not the case, my apologies in advance, but for the sake of clarity, accuracy, and honest transparency, I ask Modestprotest to cite how they first encountered this Wikipedia page, how it is that they are familiar with artists, students, and faculty at SFAI (to the point of speaking with an SFAI faculty, which was admitted in an earlier comment), to further reveal their actual identity and why they are pursuing this attack when there are an infinite number of cases on Wikipedia that challenge the criteria for biographical postings. I can find no other cases that Modestprotest appears to be pursuing on Wikipedia. I am open to discussing whether or not this page should continue to exist by criteria standards (and as an associate of the artist, have been requested to assist with its removal), but I'm not about to do that with an anonymous poster who appears to have a very vindictive and personal agenda here.Jonsajda (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jonsajda, please see the Wikipedia definition of "meatpuppet". It is different. Thank you. Modestprotest (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woooooooow, that's quite the crusade. Whilst the COI is pretty obvious, the relentless pursuit of the perpetrator leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. Talking about the article and the subject within (for a change), it doesn't appear that he is notable. He certainly has pervaded varied avenues of the Interburg, but I can't find anything that really fulfills WP:BLP at the moment. So, Delete until it can be assured. one brave monkey 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Woooooow indeed! I have the strongest feeling that if all the socks had not come forward protesting the "proposed deletion" this discussion might have calmly turned to perhaps working on correcting COI and sourcing and improving of an article now Wiki's, had [30][31][32][33][34] shown enough with which to work. I might even have taken a stab it it myself. However, that battle has most definitely darkened thae air and sullied the ground. So now?? Nahhhh. That would reward bad behavior. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused by that, Michael... I'm not recommending deletion due to the activities of either party in this. In fact, if I were to do that, I'd also certainly be inclined to keep it. As it is, though, the sources you've given don't really go far enough towards fulfilling WP:RS, in my book. However, as I inferred above, I do feel that given a few years the subject may clear the bar. one brave monkey 06:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. as the purposes of the autho, SPA puppets, and SPA nominator have actually done much to obscurficate the issue. Well, I like a challenge, and never heard of this guiy before this AfD. So... I have just spent the last 2 hours going through the article myself. It has received a major sandblasting. I have found reviews of his works and have been able to source quite a bit so far. I am not by any means finished. After a few hours sleep, I will get back to it. Any asertion without a reliable source will be removed. When I am through... and it should not be too much longer... I will ask you to look in and review your delete opinion. I will not ask any of the SPAs to comment, as their opinions are quite clear. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so; good luck! :-D one brave monkey 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability whatsoever at present. (updated slightly below)Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drama notwithstanding, no evidence of notability. If none of these socks can produce it, it's probably not there. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....maybe in a few years, maybe never..Modernist (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I think the original article was full of more EGO than anything else, specially with the author and socks not understanding COI and proper sourcing. Since the last comment immediately above this update, I have just completed one heck of a major SANDBLASTING and rewrite. Editors are invited to review the before and after, and comment accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the improved article. Minor notability has been found and sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far improved, but I still don't think he's notable. Who "critically acclaimed" "Queer in Kansas"? Did you see it btw? The galleries exhibited in, which are key to notability for young artists like this, seem small & local. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "far improved". We do what we can. "Queer in Kansas" reviews/mention No, I have not, nor likely ever will see the film. As for the galleries, I had not thought to include reviews to show the galleries own notabilities, local or not. Do you think it is important do do so? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it matters. The film is (or was) linked to off his website. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... trust me... I removed COI links to his website or that of his publishing house, just to be sure. And in checking after your comment, I found that I had indeed included a ref to the article where the film was reviewed by The San Francisco Bay Times. But since you brought it to my attention as a concern, I also included some of the specific review at "critical response". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - despite the shrieking of my inner deletionista. The improvements made to this article are just that, improvements. I'm convinced that they establish notability - just. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the article has improved thanks to Michael (above); I stand by my previous opinion...he's not ready for prime time....Modernist (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if the real Peter Max Lawrence is participating in this discussion, and really wants the article deleted, I would encourage them to establish they are the real Peter Max Lawrence through opening an OTRS ticket. Otherwise, hats off to Michael Schmidt, who, I agree, has established that PML meets the criteria for inclusion here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I looked at the sockpuppet investigation record. And, unless I am missing something, it seems to me that the diffs the investigating admin cited that they believed established that User:Petermaxlawrence is the same individual as the sockpuppets -- do not actually establish User:Petermaxlawrence is the same individual as the sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- User:Modestprotest, when a new contributor arrives, and immediately engages in non-beginner activities, like nominating articles for deletion; when they edit only a few articles, one a single topic -- it triggers a concern that this new contributor may be a sockpuppet. There are valid reasons for wikipedians to retire old ID, and initiate new ones. But, I think it is reasonable for established wikipedians who retire an ID and start a new one to put some kind of disclaimer on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if you would offer an explanation of your previous wikipedia career, because your profile fits that of typical sockpuppets. I think this is particularly important now because it would help us all know you were not in a conflict of interest. If you think you have a good reason to protect your anonymity I'd appreciate it if you offered a note that said something like:

Although this is a relatively new wiki-id those who suspect I am not new to the wikipedia are correct. Trusted administrator XXX will confirm they agree I have a valid reason to retire my old ID and a valid reason to keep my old ID confidential.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I found enough away from the subject's websites to show passing WP:Creative... just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at the article following Michael's work, I'm now changing my view to a weak keep. In particular it was the Saatchi and the SF Bay Times sources that tipped it for me. I'd recommend moving some of the comments under the "Critical Repsonse" section into "Career" to avoid it sounding like a puff-piece but that's merely formatting. I think the basic details are sound... perhaps not as sound as I'd like, but sound enough to remain. one brave monkey 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Saatchi: Anyone can create a profile on Saatchi's website. See http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/register. There was a link sent out to SFAI students a couple years ago recommending that we all make a profile so our work can be seen. Same with: http://www.americanartists.org/art/artist_detail_87.htm. While I agree that the article has been significantly improved by Michael and I commend his time and effort to make the article neutral instead of self-promotional, I must stress the many DIY artist websites that are offered to us in which we can show our work to an internet audience. P.S. The "Tornado Gallery" is not a "real" gallery and what I mean by "real" is that it is not seen as an established, functional, open to the public gallery in San Francisco. It is a small room in his apartment that he calls a gallery and opens up to friends when he has parties. Most of the time the room is used as a 2nd bedroom. Please see the "gallery" website at http://tornado-sf.blogspot.com. <Modestprotest (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your position already. Please note that AFD isn't a vote. Thanks. one brave monkey 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Well, I am not sure if you do understand because I wasn't establishing a position. I was merely clarifying some things people might find to be showing notability. Like Saatchi in your case, and I wanted to show that the online gallery is something that PML created himself, not Saatchi employees, curators, et. al. Also Michael has been using this page to show everyone his improved edits in an effort to "Keep" this article. If he can do that, why cannot I point out the still existing problems with it? Modestprotest (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page to try and alleviate this, frankly, bloody messy AFD. one brave monkey 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response. Thank you and I hope it helps with understanding where I am coming from.Modestprotest (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am moving some discussion to my usertalk page, to avoid disruption of the AfD process. Thank you. Modestprotest (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SM Lifestyle Center[edit]

Non notable mall. No inline citations or external links. No inbound links either. Flewis^(talk) 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking this to AfD just 13 minutes after it was created and without any of the strongly recommended prior steps like tagging appears over the top. - Dravecky (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was tagged for Afd rather than being tagged for CSD in order to establish a thorough consensus. Also, the sole contributor to the article has chosen not to edit or improve the article further [35]. The article would've probably remained in its current state for a long time, without being noticed or edited had it not been tagged. At least now it will be brought to the attention of the community, who will have the chance to improve it, so that it meets wiki standards - in the case of a 'keep' --Flewis^(talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(read square meters as square feet)Its gross leasable area would make it almost 3 times the minimum for a "Super regional mall" and these have generally been kept in previous AFDs,[36], serving as the "dominant shopping venue for the region in which it is located" per Shopping mall. Delete Rather small mall, far less than "regional" in its leasable area. Malls of this size have often been deleted in past AFDs since they are very common. Perhaps mention it in an article about its city. Edison (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SM Prime Holdings & Henry Sy. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the figure for retail space is correct, it's almost as big as the Mall of America (216000 vs 230000 m²), and would be the seventh biggest mall in the US. Edison, are you confusing square metres and square feet? A mall that big is notable, if we can source the figure. The SM website lists it as still under construction, BTW. Matt's talk 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the catch of sq meters rather than sq feet. BTW, "SM Lifestyle Center" sounds like whips and chains and is a pretty odd name for a shopping mall. Edison (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default. Although a Google search on "SM Lifestyle Center" returns next to nothing, the few hits link to sites about "SM中国". A search on that returns a lot of hits, nearly all of them in Chinese. Only someone who speaks any Chinese may conclude that none of those references can establish the mall's notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Zibo. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zichuan District I had a longer look at the official SM China website, and the "construction area" of the Zibo shopping centre is listed as 66,000.17 square metres (it's the same in Mandarin). I also googled/baidu'd Zibo and SM Mall (淄博 SM城市广场; SM中国), and couldn't find any RSs, just a Zichuan District propaganda article. Most of the leading articles on Baidu are about some sort of talent show SM was running. Matt's talk 14:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because otherwise it'll set a record for the most relists. No, seriously, keep because there do seem to be sources, they're probably just in Chinese. The largest mall by a notable management firm is probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a major retail facility, and citable sources clearly exist. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and relisting again isn't going to bring about one. Merging or re-directing is an editorial decision and there's no clear consensus to do anything else. TravellingCari 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Luck Schleprock[edit]

Just can't see how a single (or very few multiple) cameo character from the Flintstones is notable enough for own page. Further, how can this be at all referenced or cited? --Kickstart70-T-C 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that The Honeymooners were an influence on The Flintstones. Was this character also based on one from another series? -- Eastmain (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is tough but this character has inspired a colloquialism for bad luck as well as the name for a 90s punk band. It would be like losing The Great Gazoo! ^{XF Law}_{talk at me} 06:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show. I can't see how this could ever be expanded - he's just not in Joe Btfsplk's league. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show. Tan | 39 17:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show. This was just a supporting character who made brief appearances. A full article is not warranted. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Although I personally like Schleprock, I can't see how the article could be expanded or sourced.
Weak keep or perhaps merge. The topic has a fair number of RS passing references: [37], [38]. While passing references only (some with a one sentence description of the character) the term is apparently fairly common and we certainly should not delete as it is a reasonable search term. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED by snowball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Baptism[edit]

Unnecessary content fork from Barack Obama TrulyBlue (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is history about Barack Obama. This quote existed in the Barack Obama wiki article for nearly two years from November 2006 March 2008. I contend that those who oppose Barack Obama would like to hide this fact so the false rumors that Obama is a muslim remains. This wiki page should exist.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single line quote that creator failed to insert into the main Barack Obama article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it appears that there has been some opposition to adding this quote into the main article... and following a discussion on the article's talk page a user decided to take his ball elsewhere. Despite not being overtly POV and simply being a quote that asserts the subject's religion, it is still not a good thing. one brave monkey 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historical reference. Again, the quote was maintained in the main wiki article for nearly two years.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it should be included in Wikipedia, I suggest seeking consensus on the talk page of the main article. As it is, the article being considered here is a fork, in violation of WP:CFORK. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment; Paul, if this detail has a place, then the main article is where it should go. If you fail to gain consensus to add it, then I'm afraid that is how WP works. Creating another article to add this info is frowned upon and it could be seen as disruptive. I'd advise to continue your discussion on the talk page and review whether it is of the utmost importance to add this quote. one brave monkey 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a request to add, but a request to reinsert what was already there for nearly two years. Do you people understand that? The quote existed in main Barack Obama wiki article for nearly two years. I don't see any consensus to have it removed. Yet you people would rather keep such quotes as the following in the main Barack Obama wiki artitcle, "Obama plays basketball, a sport he participated in as a member of his high school's varsity team.[164]"--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there are numerous references to his association with the church, and oportunities for specific refs to baptism in the Barack Obama category, maybe under Public image of Barack Obama#Religion. The baptism does not deserve an article all to itself, however. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious forking. This belongs in either the main article or (more likely) shouldn't be included at all. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus interpreation: We will not allow one single mention on the entire WikiPedia website that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Show me one place in this entire website that you'll allow such a quote to exist, including the reference --> Obama (2006), pp. 202–208. Portions excerpted in: Obama, Barack (October 23, 2006). "My Spiritual Journey". TIME. Retrieved 2007-09-30. See also: Guess, J. Bennett (February 9, 2007). "Barack Obama, Candidate for President, is 'UCC'". United Church News. Retrieved 2007-09-30.--PaulLowrance (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate. This is specifically focused on deleting the Barack Obama Baptism fork article. You can still include it in the main Obama article if you can gain consensus. I suggest re-wording it and seeking consensus for a biographical statement regarding his Christian baptism that references your sources. In its present state, you won't find consensus. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are even reading it before posting "delete." Rewording is out of the question because it is a quote. If people read it they would know it's a quote.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that it is a quote. You should read up on assuming good faith if you expect to accomplish any of your goals on Wikipedia. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you work on some type of consensus to include a variant of that material on the main Obama article. No one here is against you; this article about which we are writing is simply a fork article and should be deleted. CorpITGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it a fork when you people will not allow on any wikipage? This is funny because in the wiki page on "fork" it says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" Here's a little fact: You people are preventing information. After asking too many times as to where the information goes you still cannot answer. OK, you people said it goes in the Barack Obama page, but how interesting that you will not allow it there. Perhaps this calls for some higher authority at wikipedia to analyze what you people are doing.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the user was not able to get this information into the main article, then the user just made a new sub article for it. Obvious forking. Brothejr (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice, as this is an obvious content fork placed onto the project by a frustrated user who failed to build consensus for it in the main article. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious POV fork - not nearly notable enough to deserve its own article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer as to where in wikipedia one can add that Barack Obama was baptized in 1988. Where? You refuse to allow anyone to reinsert it in the Barack Obama wiki page when it was there for nearly two years. This is WikiPedia with rules, not "a group can take over the Obama page and do whatever they want." Why allow statements in the wiki that Barack plays basketball, but you people refuse to allow one single mention in this entire wiki website that Barack was baptized in 1988? Can anyone answer?--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have already pointed out that there are various places where a properly referenced mention can go, and the "Obama is a closet Muslim" controversy is covered here. The baptism could be mentioned there, or, with consensus, on the main Barack obama wiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that page just now and it's nice to see some statistics as to just how many people falsely believe Barack is a muslim. My Mother believes Barack is a muslim, but I don't have the heart to correct her and start some heated discussion since she's getting old. She listens to the news each night, but obviously never heard that Barack was baptized in 1988. I can't understand why the consensus would want such information hidden.--PaulLowrance (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, it would be great if you could add the quote there. BTW, a wikipedia search on Barack Obama baptized showed the following results -->

"No page with that title exists.
...
[1] Antichrist
...
[2] Dan Rooney
...
[3] John McCain"

Even John McCain made it in the search list, but no Barack Obama! What's wrong with this picture? And may I ask this, if WikiPedia consensus can remove anything then what's to stop say some Christian church community from owning wikipages?--PaulLowrance (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, at least as at this precise date and time. Hit 1 (apart from your new forked page) is Barack Obama. Also, when you made the above contribution the article had the baptism in it, so I'm surprised that you didn't see it in the search results (possible database lag on searches? I don't know how searches work sufficiently to know if that's a possible cause). Anyway, it's in Barack Obama, no need to fork, please can we all go home now? TrulyBlue (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious content fork verging on soapboxing. PaulLowrance, you could seek consensus to mention the issue in the "Barack Obama" or "Public image of Barack Obama" articles. - Ev (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the current version of the "Barack Obama" article already mentions this fact in the Family and personal life section: "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988." - Ev (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the day when wanting to post "information" becomes soapboxing.--PaulLowrance (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in Barack Obama. Edison (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention of the Barack Obama baptism. I searched high and low. I've been a system admin for several servers since 1997. I've been a software engineer for ~ 30 years and was programming computers since the age of 13. So I know how to search a web page, and I literally search dozens of times on the Barack Obama web page. Here is the proof -->

At this very moment you can see the google cache for yesterday, Oct 28, 2008 10:36:43 GMT.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1lCewv9YnT8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama+%22barack+obama%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

If you hurry up and view googles cache before google updates it you will see there is no mention of Barack's baptism at the Trinity United Church of Christ.

At this moment there is a small mention of the Barack baptism without a history change, which proves that wikipedia pages are being modified at a high level. As suspected, to say the least the wikipedia website is being abused for political purposes. Also, I know for fact that ~~ one month ago the Barack Obama wiki article contained detailed information about his baptism. For example it mentioned the entire name of the church, which is "Trinity United Church of Christ." At this moment the Barack Obama article only says "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988."

So without any wiki history the wiki article went from a detailed mention of Barack's baptism, to nothing, and now back to an outline of his baptism. At least I now have my personal proof. Having been a system admin and software engineer, I know how easy it is to place backdoors on websites to allow key people to modify the pages and history logs without notice. What a shame. Can't humanity accomplish anything free of abuse?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a G3, as the article creator admitted this was a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.I.C.A.[edit]

This article started as a soapbox article, and has gone through some revisions that do not alleviate the POV problems, but only turn it into a battle ground. Further, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no such legislation as the Local Immigration Control Act. What DOES exist is Section 287.g of the Immigration and National Security Act of 1996, which has a much better article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Local Immigration Control Act does not technically exist. However, it is a combination of various illegal immigration controls which are advocated by US senators and experts in the various fields the LICA affects. As for the writing of the article, that is being addressed.LocutusofBorg01 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the act does not exist, then there can't be an article about it. If you can name an entity or organization that DOES exist than you can write about that, but otherwise this is all just vague speculation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject does not exist. This is OR at best. Dloh cierekim 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have at the moment no opinion on keeping/deletion, but I would point out that the article should at least identify what country it is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed the US. Oh, dear, my Amreicocentrism is showing. Again. Dloh cierekim 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment added above by LocutusofBorg, the LICA is not an actual law or bill in ANY country. However, the concept discussed is germaine to the United States. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, but is an OR discussion instead of an article. Dloh cierekim 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much fun as it is to watch you try to figure out what the L.I.C.A. is, I might as well just tell you. It only sort of exists. Jacob B. and I are debaters in the NCFCA debate league. Our topic last year was illegal immigration. So, instead of doing something lame like "build a border wall", we decided to make up an entirely new bill. We combined mass deportation, social security card reform, and Proposition 287g to form the Local Immigration Control Act (the original name was Local Immigration Enforcement Act, but LICA is much cooler than LIEA). There you go, the LICA would work in practice, but Congress would never pass it. Oh, and is about the USA LocutusofBorg01 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically this is all about something you made up one day??? That is CERTAINLY grounds for deletion!!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the author just told us it was a hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Craig Brown[edit]

Repeated recreation today under various names (Dave E. Crockett) being one. Usernames suggest this is being written by subject himself. No real notability, unsourced. Probable COI violation. Tan | 39 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the entertainment industry, specifically radio and broadcasting. It was also submitted under the name Dave E. Crockett as that is the professional name used. There are links to various radio stations relevant to the career path, cities, history etc. I would rather you leave this up as a biographical reference to former listeners who wonder "What ever happened to ---" Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.91.254 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Tan -- Help me understand the issue. I would rather be listed (yes, self authored) as Dave E. Crockett. Does the fact that I wrote it myself and did not try to hide that make the entry less relevant? I'm trying to abide by the rules. This is after all a source for information, no matter how trivial it may seem to you or the other moderators. Keeping that in mind I would say that a person who worked at 20 radio stations and has appeared on network TV in prime-time would be slightly relevant. Or at least a curiosity. This isn't the bio from just "some guy in the neighborhood." It represents a career span of 30+ years broadcasting in Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. Cities that make up of 28 million listeners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.91.254 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI (you have an obvious conflict of interest, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups), WP:BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject), WP:OR (Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position), and WP:V (The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true). Essentially, this article does not meet Wikipedia policy on multiple fronts. Just because you think you are notable does not mean you meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Tan | 39 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overlooking the COI issue, there are the WP:RS and WP:BIO issues that are not so easily overlooked. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan- I see a lot or radio stations who are promoting themselves with Wki as are there many musicians. Please look at LARRY LUJACK and explain the difference between his WIKI and mine. Thanks.

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". This is also coupled with the fact that your main focus seems to be promoting yourself - you are concerned that other radio stations are doing it, and want a piece of the pie. We are not here for your promotion. Tan | 39 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For "self-effacing" read "self-promoting". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Dloh cierekim 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan- Under the guidelines of WIKI ANY biographical input would have to be considered "self promoting" then. Even your page promotes your "self interests." You belong to some group in Arizona and have posted other articles on Wiki. Isn't that "self promoting" to talk about YOUR deeds and YOUR interests? I don't follow your logic on what constitutes COI or "self promoting." Seems very random to me. SCB

Mr. Brown, my page is my "user page". See WP:USER. The "some group" I belong to in Arizona is the Wikipedia Arizona Project, a group of editors who contribute to articles related to Arizona. You'll notice I have never once attempted to edit an actual mainspace page with information about myself. You say "under the guidelines of WIKI ANY biographical input would have to be considered self promoting". Well, I assume you mean, under the guidelines of WP:BIO, and then it's only if that person is doing the editing. Biographies are written by third parties. Autobiographies, which are not allowed here, are written by the subject. Do you see the difference? Accusing me of being self-promoting is either a laughable, shameless ploy, or you really do have no understanding of what Wikipedia is, how it works, and refuse to educate yourself about it using all the links to policy and guidelines I have provided. Clearly I am not the only one here - we have three other editors who have chimed in with a resounding delete. Even if someone else wrote this article, you do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion here, and everyone, unfortunately, is not entitled to a Wikipedia page. Frankly, Mr. Brown, you are simply Just Another Radio DJ. Until you can show that you solidly meet one of the explicit criteria for notability set forth in WP:BIO, your page will not have a place here. I'm sorry. Tan | 39 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan - Your point is well taken and you are correct on the "Biography" versus "Autobiographical" argument. If my page has to go, it has to go. SCB

Tan - One quick question... Under the KHMX page my name is listed (Dave E. Crockett) under "former Jocks." Is it possible to link a Bio page to that ? SCB

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Surfin' USA. History not retained as no sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer's Daughter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Farmer's Daughter

Non-notable song, didn't chart, no sources. Suggest deletion and moving Farmer's Daughter (band) to this title (of course, with a hatnote pointing to the appropriate Beach Boys album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, support the move as well. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Surfin' USA : WP:NSONGS states that a song/single must have "ranked on national or significant music charts", "won significant awards or honors" or "been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". Aside from Fleetwood mac doing a version this song doe snot appear to warrant it's own article.Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against a NPOV, properly sourced recreation. Mr.Z-man 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Eisenberg[edit]

As written, this article appears to exist purely to disparage one Ian Eisenberg. However, rewriting it would require reliable, independent sources, and I wasn't able to find any with a quick google search. Does this person meet the notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current article focuses too much on the negative aspects of this person and if these are removed, there's nothing left that would warrant the article to exist to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. If not I apologize. I am the subject of this article. It is writen by a ex shareholder of Zevia that is on a mission to harm the company. Almost the entire article is simply innacurate and defamatory. Feel free to contact me for more information [email protected]

Don't Delete. The page has been rewritten with reliable independent sources. Any fact can be determined via a google search (i.e. Ian Eisenberg FTC, Ian Eisenberg Blue Frog Mobile, Blue Frog Mobile Bankruptcy, Ian Eisenberg Zevia, Ian Eisenberg Ruth Parasol, NBC Dateline Joel and Ian Eisenberg) There is no defamatory or innacurate information. The truth is not dispraging. The article is not completely negative. Please advise. This article meets the requirements for notability. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Openthedoorfornow (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)— Openthedoorfornow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Question. There are no reliable independent sources listed on the article itself, and I didn't find any with a google search. The article includes a court filing, which isn't useful for demonstrating notability, and a newspaper article that isn't about Eisenberg. Could you add those specific magazine and newspaper articles that have been written about Eisenberg, either here or to the article itself? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Don't see any WP:RS. Don't see any notability. This is entirely negative and the only claim to notability is via notoriety via the negative part. Dloh cierekim 00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources provided by Phil do not establish notability. One was a blog. There is not substantial coverage beyond one purported bad event. Once again, this is not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. It is only sufficient to bash the subject. Dloh cierekim 14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, most of these are from local sources. Those that are not make only trivial mentions of the subject in passing. The encyclopedic significance of the subject does not outweigh the negative BLP aspects, which also do not carry sufficient non trivial coverage for an article. Dloh cierekim 14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources available online, such as [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:BLP. This is mired in conflict of interest. It is apparent from his first version and his contributions that the author Openthedoorfornow (talk · contribs) is an SPA using Wikipedia for an attack mission. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on second thoughts, I change my !vote to neutral. It is apparent that Openthedoorfornow (talk · contribs), Ian Eisenberg (talk · contribs), Seattle Michael (talk · contribs), Zeviallc (talk · contribs) and Derek Newman (talk · contribs) are all SPAs who have come here to use Wikipedia as an arena to fight their battles, and all need to be aware of our policy on edits made by people with a conflict of interest; but if notability can be demonstrated from reliable sources, the constraints of WP:BLP are observed, and uninvolved editors keep an eye on the article, an acceptable article may be possible. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nochiura Natsumi[edit]

Jpop group with no real claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. Notability not found in gsearch or gnews; no reliable, independent sources in article. Taking to AfD rather than PROD because this article has been around for a while and had multiple editors. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this is their only single and has no independent notability:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did those Google searches include Japanese-language pages? Unless you can search in Japanese and investigate the hits, I don't think Google is the right way to make this decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons I brought it here rather than prod, so that more eyes would help the community make a better decision. (But thanks for indirectly reminding me to delsort this to Japan as well.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their single Renai Sentai Shitsu Ranger reached the 4th place on TBS's Top 100 weekly countdown show Count Down TV (link). I think that meets criteria nº 2 of WP:MUSIC. --Cattus ^talk 16:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that considered a national music chart? If so, it sure seems to meet the requirement. (And any chance you could add this info to the article?)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info to the articles. I asked about the chart on WikiProject Japan and from what User:Nihonjoe said, I think it can be considered a national music chart.--Cattus ^talk 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. As there are no delete !votes, I withdraw the nom. Thanks for finding sources I couldn't!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was a nice way to practice my very incipient Japanese.:)--Cattus ^talk 21:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to ranking on a national chart. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Castillion[edit]

Youth player who hasn't played an official match for Ajax yet. For the same reason I am also nominating the following articles:

Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom BanRay 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Daley Blind to the article on his father. Have not yet formed opinion on the other articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure they are related? the article only mentions it 3 times--ClubOranje^Talk 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 09:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fail criteria as only playing youth level (both club and international) in all cases. Does Darko Bodul really have 50 U-19 caps? that seems a lot - game a month for 4 years - hard to verify without sources. Not entirely convinced that is accurate.--ClubOranje^Talk 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breion Diamond[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it common for porn titles to include the name of the main performer? If not, I'd say that would convey notability. Also see WP:JUSTAPOLICY A nomination should explain why an article fails the mentioned guidelines so people can't just throw in a couple of guidelines that don't actually apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my comment, the nom failed to provide a proper reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? I'll reword my nomination:

This article fails Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability of Articles, Notability of Biographies and Notability of Pornography Articles. The subject of the article is not notable enough to have an article.

As to your other question, I believe it is common for porn titles to include the main performer. But as WP:PORNBIO says, anyone can make a porn (or 17, since they are often mashups), so simply starring in a porn does not make him notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as well as the suspected conflict of interest with the creator, who has only edited promotional articles dealing with the black gay porn industry. Themfromspace (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No groundless allegations, please. The creator has no connection at all, except personal interest, with the porn industry.GBataille (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is clear as day to me, no need to elaborate any further. JBsupreme (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Tabercil (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra credit[edit]

Non-encyclopedic original research. Speedy declined by myself, mostly because I wanted the creator to see community consensus. Tan | 39 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-defined concept in teaching. It seems to me that the issue here is the lack of sources in the article. Given the ubiquitous use of "extra credit" in classrooms everywhere, sources should not be difficult to find. Amazinglarry (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that the article is entirely original thought. WP:OR is policy on Wikipedia, not guideline - and if we went in and removed all the original research, the article would be completely blank. In other words, it needs a complete rewrite from sources; there is nothing here that can be putatively kept. Tan | 39 15:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A complete rewrite from sources requires nothing more than the "edit this page" button, which even editors without accounts have. It does not require administrator privileges, and the correct template for it is {{cleanup-rewrite}}, not {{subst:afd1}}. AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also think it's non-encyclopedic, Uncle G. Try to keep up, mmkay? Tan | 39 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's nothing to keep up with. You haven't explained the specifics of that, with reference to actual policy and guidelines. You did explain the specifics of your objection to original research, and that is what was addressed above. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a lot to keep up with. Your comments show the quintessential inclusionist attitude that debases Wikipedia credibility. Extrapolated, your attitude is that we should create unreferenced stub articles for every conceivable concept and object, and leave them there with "needs work" tags until someone comes along to conform it to policy. This article was entirely original research. Yes, I took the opportunity (detailed below) to cut it to one sourced sentence, but as I still don't think it meets notability criteria (this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary). You are welcome to your opinion, clearly, but the veiled insult of insinuating I put the wrong tag on there is predictable of inclusionists. Tan | 39 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, inclusionism only implies that stubs on notable topics should not be deleted once they have been created. There's nothing in the inclusionist POV that requires someone to create poor-quality articles, so your extrapolation is in error. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be sourced [50]. It is a concept that is well-known to educators as well as to the educated, and generally, the teacher/professor has discretion about when and how to offer the opportunity. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mandsford's Google catch. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS The question now arises -- who is going to rewrite the article to include all of Mandsford's Google goodies? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to cut the article down to one sentence with a source - at least then the OR is gone - but not sure where to start on the "Google catch". Tan | 39 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Scholastic excellence is not my metier, but I might recommend using "Teaching Psychology: A Step by Step Guide - Page 36" as your source to erase the OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. I still disagree this should be a Wiki entry - seems to be more relevant to Wiktionary than here. Tan | 39 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every concept, however well sourced, needs an article. This is no more than a dictionary definition idea, and not a broad enough topic for an article, or related enough for a redirect. Remember that fulfilling a single policy does not make an article worthy of inclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is left after the cuts is a dictionary def and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (If an article is really urgently needed we can request it at a relevant project). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People really don't think this can be expanded? I'm sure something has been said about the relation between extra credit and grade inflation. Plus, there are plenty of books that offer extra-credit guidelines for teachers: [51], [52]. Zagalejo^^^ 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying it can't be expanded. The deletion !votes are saying that it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. One of the sources you gave there was already discussed above, and is the sole source in the existing article. Tan | 39 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it can be expanded, then why isn't it encyclopedic? Here are a couple more sources that can be used: [53], [54]. Zagalejo^^^ 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you take a second look at the aforementioned Google catch, it appears that there is a wealth of information regarding the ethical complexities of awarding extra credit (from the teacher's perspective) and chasing after it (from the student's perspective). That takes it beyond the limits of a definition. But that takes us back to the earlier question: who wants to earn extra credit and expand the article properly? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links provided in AFD show that this article has a lot of potential to be expanded and refined into a proper article. AFD is not cleanup. Deletion, though much easier to accomplish than actually writing an article, is absolutely not the proper action to pursue in this case. SashaNein (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Can't be OR with the sources provided. Needs more content, though. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now has the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete with grading or a similar page. While a page defining extra credit would be at home on the Wiktionary, it is hardly notable enough to require a standalone article in an encyclopedia. - chicgeek ^talk 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merge and delete? It's really one or the other. If we delete it, we can't well merge it, and if we merge it we can't well also delete it. Merge is a vote keep for all intents and purposes... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, no, you do it in sequential order - you merge any relevant and appropriate information into the larger suggested article, then you delete this page. You keep the information, delete the article. Tan | 39 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well redirects are used to maintain links between relevant sections. So if we accpet the term, and we all do, then it should be kept as a redirect. More importantly, the edit history has to stay anyway, so merge = keep. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more to grading than some people may think :). There's actually quite a large literature on these things--both advice to students , and teacher education and even some research of variable quality, so there's plenty of room for expansion. DGG (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has verifiable encyclopedic depth. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. It's possible that the subject can be expanded beyond a dicdef, but the current article is a terrible mishmash that would be worse than a redlink. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles look lousy at first. But we don't delete pages just because they need cleanup or expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support either for this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, take a look at the article now -- it appears some clever people helped to bring it up to grade (at least to stub-worthy grade). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should have an article on this and this is a reasonable start. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I've been bold and moved the article to Russell Brand prank calls row per WP:BLP1E. The news story is now highly notable in the UK, with Prime Minister and BBC involved, and we should have an article on that. Whether the victim is independently notable is something we should discuss later when the dust is settled a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this close and endorse it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Baillie[edit]

Classic WP:BLP1E, no notability even asserted outside this small brou-ha-ha. Rodhull andemu 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People look to Wikipedia to provide accurate information. The information appears accurate and I would not be the first person to visit Wikipedia expecting to find information about someone who is making headline news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoatridge (talk • contribs) 07:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of Satanic Sluts Extreme (who according to their website have performed at Download and Glastonbury festivals among others), combined with this event seem sufficient to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialknives (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this article very obviously needs a great deal of work, this person is notable for more than one event in my opinion, even though the article does not mention other events yet. To cite a different example that the one Specialknives mentioned above, the Daily Mail states that she recently played a prostitute/glamour model in a high profile TV pilot comedy/drama called Trollops of Threadneedle Street^[1]. --C 1 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete - Not notable. Having a mention in another article would suffice, not enough information about the person (its mainly about the prank call) to warrant an article Jujubean55 (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; all sources are in reference to the Brand/Ross debacle, pushing this firmly into the territory governed by WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Everything that is really worth saying about this incident is already said in the relevant articles... she doesn't appear to be notable outside of that. one brave monkey 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. The only sources demonstrating her 'notability' are connected with the Russell Brand story. (Arguably, there's a privacy argument for deletion here as well.) Terraxos (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be implemented as a sentence in either Ross' or Brand's pages, or perhaps both. The Prime Minister may have passed comment, but I doubt anyone will still care in a few months. LiamUK (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. uFu (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly not notable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baillie deserves no publicity for this, there is no reason for us as an encyclopaedia to participate in a profile-raising media stunt. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to be a scandal. And I suspect we will hear more of her soon.Sparten (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then sure, when it happens; until then, policy applies. --Rodhull andemu 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly, but she is now well known. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a very high profile incident, she deserves recognition as a significant figure in this business. Do I detect a moralistic tone in Rovanienem-5 comments? PatGallacher (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete article was created in response to a single incident in which this young girl was an unwilling victim of nasty antics by famous celebrities. That incident can and is be recorded on the existing biographies of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. The article fails WP:BLP1E and any test of basic human dignity, since there is little more notable about her than her victim status, and tabloid newspapers dredging up other stuff in response. The argument that she's notable outside of that is bollocks. The article was created in response to the current scandal in which she was an unparticipating vicim, and you can't escape that fact. We didn't have an article before the victimisation, and the victimisation should not be allowed to change that fact. If, and it is a big if, she could justify an article on other grounds, then let us consider that if someone wants to write it in a few months when the media furore passes. The problem here is that we seem to have thrown WP:NOTNEWS out of the window, and people now immediately create biographies in response to passing news stories, and then try to justify them on unrelated notability grounds. Let's start being an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, delete this - and debate any other claim to notability (if there is one) when it isn't lame excuse to get another biography written about a victim's 15 min of tabloid hell.--(Is this a "moralistic tone"? Hell, yes!) Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, there is no such thing as a "strong delete", and second of all, I did find the page useful and interesting, for example the fact that she recently appeared in a film. Because of reading this, I might be interested to see the film now, and make up my ming regarding this whole situation. Third of all, I don't think it's very relevant to discuss matters on an encyclopaedia with words like "bollocks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.51.22 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's certainly created a media storm. It's not really relevant to this article, but see here, where the BBC's "Have Your Say" messageboard has gone into meltdown. 10,553 commnets so far (5315 published and 5075 awaiting moderation - as of time of writing). Compare that to the next most popular ones (on the Syria incident and the credit crunch) with 2112 and 1932 comments respectively. The next ones down have less than 100 comments each! Carcharoth (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, classic example of a BLP1E, and otherwise not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue isn't whether Wikipedia should censor itself to protect her dignity, such as User:Scott MacDonald proposes, it's whether this woman is notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. At the moment her notability just shot through the roof due to the antics of Brand & Ross. People are going to be trying to find out more about her, as I just did, and that is the purpose an encyclopedia. As to those who say we should delete this article because she is only going to be notable for a fortnight, a tropical storm may only last that long but it is still considered notable and that's the because of the effects such a storm has. The media storm ot which Georgina Baillie is at the centre, is in all likelihood going to have serious ramifications on Brand, Ross and of course herself not to mention changes in how such "comedy" is regulated by Ofcom. 82.45.20.201 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The moment I read about this I turned to Wikipedia for unbiased and factual information on the subject. It was of course heart-warming (but perhaps predictable) to get to the article and find the customary crowd of Deletionists already hard at work trying to suppress the material because of its populist leanings. My own view is that the existing material is short and concise and whilst it probably does not deserve to be any longer at this stage, it is worthy of retention. Kind regards--Calabraxthis^(talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without prejudice to an early relisting. Whilst this is, presently looking rather BLP1E-ish, it is a huge story in the UK, and looks like running further. I suspect that (publicity stunt or not) this young lady may become notable in the next couple of weeks. As such, it would seem to be sensible to hang fire on a deletion decision for a couple of weeks. Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that's the wrong way about. We don't keep a nasty article on someone until we see if we have justification for doing so. We disallow news (WP:NOT news) - and then, once time gives some perspective, we can allow an article if notability beyond the three-day news cycle exists. Otherwise what is WP:NOTNEWS about.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classic example of an article which relates to "news now" and therefore has notability, but which should eb revisisted in 6 months' time, to see whether the notability has endured. -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a huge story in the UK, and her character has become a factor in this rather nasty affair. I doubt it is a publicity stunt at least from her side. In the short term it seems right to keep the entry. Longer term it may be better to merge it into the article on the main Brand/Ross affair. Cerddaf (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:BLP1E Widefox (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with what some have said above, I came to Wikipedia hoping that I'd be able to find information on this person other than what the UK tabloids have been publishing, which so far seems heavily slanted towards the villains and victims approach to reporting those recent events. As I now see, there was no article until this incident hit the press, and as such I can see why some would like this article removed under the notability guidelines. It's for a wider debate rather than this page, but I personally don't see why minor celebrities should be excluded from Wikipedia anyway - it's not as if it's a printed publication and the page count needs to be trimmed. If this story goes the way of most storms of this nature, the lady in question will be forgotten by most of us in six months, although she'll no doubt be mentioned in any stories about her grandfather for some time to come. But as much as people are saying delete the article because it is only here in relation to a short-lived news story, I feel that in many ways makes it more important that there is a place on Wikipedia for this person. Wikipedia should be one place where information on her is available in ten years' time should she become newsworthy again. That's regardless of whether all of this is a publicity stunt. sideiron (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. This is now becoming a major news story in the UK, with questions parliament, and an investigation on the BBC as to how this ever got broadcast. There are calls for celebrities employed by the BBC to be sacked. However, the story is NOT about the victim, who fails WP:BLP1E but about a telephone call made by a celebrity, to her far more famous grandfather. I suggest moving this to Russell Brant Prank Calls Row, which it the title that the BBC news site is currently using.See right column. We should cover this, and not tabloid crap about how the victim may have once auditioned for topless modelling.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Process (Memphis Bleek album)[edit]

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Article has been cited for lack of sources since December 2007. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased album, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With article lacking sources and the album still not released after 10 months this a crystal-clear (sorry for the pun) case of crystal ball gazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent O'Donnell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vincent O'Donnell

Does not assert notability under WP:BIO for academics, publishers or any other person NN criteria. Also no coverage of any kind and therefore fails general NN criteria Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source is not independant and the article appears to be slightly promotional too. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, no third party evidence of significant contribution or achievement. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above, having a website and guiding tours doesn't cut it.--Celtus (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy mezzo-soprano[edit]

This article is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a "boy mezzo-soprano". The term mezzo-soprano is used exclusively for adult women. Pre-pubescent boys sharing a similar vocal range are known as trebles. Adult men with a similar range are known as countertenors. This is either a hoax or original research. Nrswanson (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not intended as a hoax, but certainly OR and innaccurate to boot. Even if it were a proper term, which it's not, there's no evidence that any of the people mentioned in the "article" had that voice range. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would venture to guess WP:OR on the basis of WP:FAITH. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, a quick cursory google glance shows that "Boy mezzo-soprano" yields 100 results while "boy treble" gets 1,16 million. It's not even a common misconception. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, I've gone to my reference books and can find nothing relating the term mezzo-soprano to boys. In my experience there are two types of treble - those who can sing Lloyd-Weber's Pie Jesu and those who just don't have the higher notes required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and very suspicious. --Lockley (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close with no action. This is mostly a content dispute. There is certainly a case for a separate article - this is clearly an important topic which has received international coverage - but the decision as to whether it should be stand-alone or as part of the main article is not a job for AfD. Black Kite 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of sport utility vehicles[edit]

I feel this article should be dealed because it has a clear bias and plenty of loaded/weasel words. I think that most of the technical infomation on the page should be returned to the usual SUV article. There's no mention of SUV safety at all on the usual SUV article, it's all contained on the criticism article, where it's presented with a bit of bias. I also think that the relevant criticism of SUVs should also go under the usual SUV article, under a section called 'Public perception of SUVs', or something along those lines .... Sawyer1990 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst it's possible the article violates the Neutral Point of View policy, its sources are cited, and verifiable, to a large extent. It does, however, need a slight re-write to avoid bias, I feel. - RD ^(Talk) 15:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Notable media phenomenon, notable over and above straightforward discussion of SUVs. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:FORK. Needs to be a section in main article and then checked for WP:NPOV. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is not the way to deal with forks that can be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; if you think you can make it a section of the main article, please do the merge. No need for AfD for merging. Tizio 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Splice each section— Obvious fork attempt

Moreover, it exacerbates the points brought up in WP:CRITICISM by not only putting the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT into its own section, but in this case putting it into a separate forked article. Each sections that should be saved needs to go back into the appropriate section in the main article. And then afterwards, cull the blatant eco-nut comments. This article is huge mess. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and don't redirect This is a bit of a stretch for an article. Even criticism sections are bound to be biased, so creating an article for the purpose should only be done in situations where criticism of the primary topic is not only considered a topic in itself but is substantially more than simply a long lists of issues people have. As not every single detaiil needs listing and explaining in an encylopedia most of this can be condensed and spread among the appropriate places in the primary. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMPORTANT After a merge of material, a redirect is required to complete the paper trail. The history of the article in its current form needs to be retained per the GFDL. =- Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although falling short in the areas of neutrality, the article provides sufficient well sourced details on area that is under debate on international level. Merging would undermine credibility of the main article, since the listed article is bigger and would transfer importance towards criticism. Instead, a smaller section linking to this article should be created.

On a separate note, I'm not sure if this can be considered a valid AfD. The issues put forward by nominator deal neutrality and possible merger. Such issues can be discussed on the article talk page and solved there. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Nominator stated withdrawal on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mica Roberts[edit]

I don't think Roberts needs her own article at the moment. She may have a charted single, but that's about. Hardly anything at all about her life...etc, etc, etc. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:MUSIC by having a charting single. Need to expanded, not deleted. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC Eric444 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Allmusic bio is certainly non-trivial, and even though her only chart single was a duet with someone much more famous, she definitely meets WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above, her article needs to be expanded as an alternative to deletion, as Music Notability Policy deems "having a charted hit on any national music chart" as criteria for musicians. - RD ^(Talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete the material. Mering or keeping where it is is an editorial discussion TravellingCari 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tufts OpenCourseWare[edit]

No sources demonstrating notability, is borderline advertisement for this service. It is not uncommon for schools to share course materials. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources strongly suggest notability; I don't see anything wrong with the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources mentioned. Someone might say that the informaworld link is not independent as it is written by Tufts U people, but since it is vetted by the people who accepted it for publication, that is irrelevant in my opinion. (That article survived peer during the publication process, making it reliable) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into OpenCourseWare. It's not their program. It's MIT's. They joined in & are offering some courses under it, but it doesn't maker their participation particularly notable. The nearest analogy is Google Books. Yale participates in Google Book Search. so does Michigan. so do about 20 other places. that doesn't make for articles Yale Google Book Search, michigan Google Book Search, etc-- it just justifies a short paragraph about each of them in the main article. No matter how much they may publicize it--they each do, as much as they can, but it's still PR, not notability, for them. Just the same with their installation of Blackboard. Or for their chapter of a fraternity, or their use of worldCat, or their part in any other notable activity. DGG (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are apples and oranges. The book scanning program is managed by Google; its participants include a number of institutions, but they all do the exact same thing, and are a member of the exact same program aiming for the exact same results pushing their data to the exact same location. OCW is just a term for a type of program; it doesn't "belong" to anyone, in the same way that all installations of blogging software should be mentioned as paragraphs in livejournal. The mere fact that there are other similar programs in existence doesn't exclude the notability of other programs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned. Please clarify your problems with the page and/or the language. The material in the article is referenced. Tufts OCW exists on it's own right as an open courseware provider and offers course materials separate from MIT's OCW program. If Tufts OCW were to be deleted/merged, then wouldn't other school entries need to be as well: - Berkeley Webcast - Notre Dame OpenCourseWare - Open Yale Courses - Tufts OpenCourseWare - Stanford Engineering Everywhere 14:46, 30 October 2008
Comment: I see nothing in this article explaining why Tufts' open course ware is particularly notable. I.e., what makes it special. I strongly agree with DGG's analysis. OpenCourseWare in general is notable, but in most cases some specific school's would not be (MIT would probably be the exception, since IIRC theirs was the first.) TallNapoleon (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it notable is coverage in detail by reliable, secondary sources. It isn't our place to decide what is and isn't 'special'. That's a job for reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per charted single.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Steff[edit]

non-notable, written as advertisement, only links to his promoters website

This musician apparently has a forthcoming album. That's the closest thing to notability i can find.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - It's always hard to judge articles like these, but I think this one stays. With some work this article would be fine, and currently weak passes WP:MUSIC. A google news search reveals multiple articles about Young Steff from sources like MTV.com, The New York Times, The State and many more established media outlets. Put some of these sources into the article, and it passes WP:N no problem. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Not sure now, if he meets cr.5 of WP:MUSIC, I don't know his discography information. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC I don't see how an argument can be made the article meets any of the criteria. And i can find no reference to him via google on the new york times or at MTV.com. Could you point me to those articles?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He has been mentioned in these articles NY Daily News, Interview*requires accesses code* The State and so on and so forth, he gets small mentions but from Notable sources. How many albums has he released? -Marcusmax(speak) 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't released an album yet. The daily news story mentions in one sentence that he performed at a basketball camp for underpriveldged kids in new york 5 years ago. The access my library link provides a summary of a gushing article from Interview, a magazine known for running advertorial type stories for A&R reps. The last link is about an appearance he made in Columbia, South Carolina, to help promote a local radio show. He gets a one sentence mention in the local paper's metro section and that's it. I have more media mentions for my career and at greater length and believe me, i don't think i'm notable either.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will let others vote, really this man has no importance to me at all. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither... the advertorial nature of the article itself just got my hackles up.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. All but 1 of the sources found are only trivial mentions. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*keep single charted on the top 100 on BillBoard R&B/Rap. Distributed by Atlantic Records, a major label. Dloh cierekim 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <<expand>>Having an official site with a major label indicates notability. Dloh cierekim 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment dlohcierekim; please read WP:MUSIC . Neither having an official website nor once having a single that rose as high as 85 on the hot R&B chart are sufficient as per that policy.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks Bali. Switch to delete.~~ Dloh cierekim 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I may get back into this real quick, according to cr.2 of WP:MUSICBIO, an artist is notable if they, "Have had a charted hit on any national music chart". However im not a real music person, so whether the hot R&B counts is a mystery to me. Also according to cr.5 of that same clause, an artist is notable if they have released more than 1 album on a major label, however I don't know his albums to establish how many and with whom he has made. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switch back to keep per marcus which is what I thought it said in the first place. [http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?configType=BBCOM_SIMPLEDEFAULT&pubList=Billboard&an=bbcom&action=Submit&kw=&exposeNavigation=true&keyword=%22Young+Steff%22&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Submit&searchType=ARTICLE_SEARCH single charted on the top 100 on BillBoard R&B/Rap. Dloh cierekim 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Scouts of Jamaica[edit]

Does not meet the criterias of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Newly founded organization with a very small membership according to its website. Was speedied twice. --jergen (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC) jergen (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep as this article was written by a different editor, obviously there is some interest in this article remaining. In addition, one of the speedies was for being written like an advert, which this version is not, so the fact that it was speedied twice is somewhat beside the point. At the very least, if not kept, this should be merged with Scouting in Jamaica. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to become a section within Scouting in Jamaica until more information becomes available. DiverScout (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DiverScout. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge notable but needs expanded. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Scouting in Jamaica until there is enough information to write a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand this to an article. There is much information about this Association on their website. Chris could assist them in putting together the entry.--Nickmini (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This organization has only just started this month. There is a mention of the 2nd Troop, so there may be two troops, but we do not really know. It is small. It may be just one troop. It is not noticed by people outside this organisation, so it is not notable enough for a separate article. It seems to be much smaller than the Girl Guides of Jamaica and probably is a break-away group from that long-established organization. Merging it into Scouting in Jamaica is the only real option at this time. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Jamaica is not an article. It is a list.--Nickmini (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Jamaica is like similar articles for almost all countries that have Scouting. They can include anything that does not fit into a specific article on one organization. Scouting in the United States for example is quite long. Scouting in the United Kingdom is more like a list, but contains other material. Look at some of them. They were all created last year after a discussion at the Scouting WikiProject. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Jamaica currently reads only as a list. there is no article, not even a stub.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yeah, new organization... big deal, the way it fits into the national picture... and the world picture... definitely warrants keeping. HECK I'd say it's notable because it's "girl scouts" but such a new national organization!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national level Scouts clubs are notable. Dloh cierekim 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ignore my bias ;-)--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as content has now developed beyond stub standard, and content seems good quality and notable within the size of the community. Merging with Scouting in Jamaica may be an option, but due to the stub nature of that page, it would end up effectively becoming an article on this Association. DiverScout (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. Tan | 39 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Aircraft[edit]

Article gives no indication of notability (the company currently employs 16 people; this should be an indication of how small it is). It's also written like an advertisement. Article does not seem to comply with WP:CORP. Phlyght (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:A7 per nom and Phlyght. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge with another relist. Merging or not is an editorial discussion, no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lie Lie Lie[edit]

I am taking this to AfD because of three things - Article is for a Single/Song, Article is for a "promo CD Single", Article is for a "Digital download". Yes the artist is notable as a member of System of a Down and yes his label (Serjical Strike) is semi-notable because it is distributed via Warner Brothers/Reprise. However - is a digital download, promo only, single notable? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Add on Comment: I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Keep It's a single, that was first realeased as a Promo CD and digital download. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to elect the dead. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes I know what it was/is and that is why I brought the discussion here. Albums, singles and songs guidlines are what I am basing this on. In part: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also more specific: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. And in regards to songs: Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article... and Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Do any of the above four releases meet the criteria is what I am asking? (And should the other three be added to this AfD discussion?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart , wasn't the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elect the Dead. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Empty Walls is a proper CD single, it charted as well. gracz54 ^(talk) 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Empty walls and sky is over have charted, so they shouldn't be deleted. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is somewhat botched as separate Afds had already been created before this bundled nomination, some of which survived an AfD already. Suggest to consider seperately. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep for "Sky is Over" and "Empty Walls", as they both charted on several notable Billboard charts as seen here. Redirect "Lie, Lie, Lie" and "The Unthinking Majority" to Elect the Dead. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Sky is Over" and "Empty Walls". Both meet the notability criteria of WP:NM. Delete "Lie Lie Lie" and "The Unthinking Majority" as they fail WP:NM; non-charting non-notable songs. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify my rationale to everyone saying that two of these singles/songs charted thusly should be kept as its own article: Just because a song/single has charted does not mean it automatically should get is own article without meeting the overall guidlines. Guidelines for Albums, singles and songs say that if a song/single has charted it is "probably notable" however that is followed up with this - Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Take the Sky Is Over article. What does the article say about the song? It says it was the "second CD format single" and that "It has charted". Then there are various releases of the single listed, along with a track listing of each. It has a brief quote about the song being inspired by a website, a section about the music video and the chart position of the song/single. The article is not about the music video so that section is more secondary information and adds nothing to the notability of the song/single. Empty Walls has more of the same - except this one has had more "releases" - it was first released as a "digital download", a "CD single", a "2 track Reprise promo", in an "edited form on promotional copies that have been sent out to radio stations" and an "acoustic version" appears on a limited edition of Elect the Dead. None of these releases would automatically make the song/single eligible for it's own article. Like the Sky Is Over article there is a "tack listing", "Music video" and "Chart positions" section. The information about the single/song charting is already part of the Serj Tankian article and the music video is listed there as well. Remember that "a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", neither of these articles show that the single/song has had enough "significant coverage" to create a "reasonably detailed article" about the song (Not the artist, not the album, not the music video - the song itself). Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there are charts for digital downloads, the fact this single is one shouldn't be held against it. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Feddersen[edit]

Fails Notability. SkyWalker (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see some POV issues, but those can easily be fixed. This woman had multiple stage, film and TV roles and she's a writer. You definitely need a a more detailed reason for calling her non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then all means please add reliable source to the article. For 1 year the article has been quiet no source is added no improvement has been made. I use AFD to bring others to attention. I don't like the articles been deleted but if there is no improvement it is sad thing. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what AFD is for. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions (particularly WP:NOEFFORT). If you want to draw attention to it, you can list it for cleanup or post at a relevant WikiProject. Having it deleted rather than properly addressed is even sadder than the article not getting attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI did a search on google. I could not find a source. I have seen article getting deleted which the person has acted in many roles but it was deleted for no third party source. So if you can find anything for that matter do add them. I find it useless on addressing it on WikiProjects because no one takes any action to do anything. Also searching for the book "Hello, here's Helga" which it claims is a best seller. I could not find anything --SkyWalker (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This, this, and this all point to her notability. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a lot more sourcing though. This article needs some serious TLC. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Load of sources available from a Google News Archive search [55] as well as the Google Books search linked by Darth Panda, which finds an entry in a paper encyclopedia [56], one of the strongest possible indicators of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cenarium ^Talk 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega elements[edit]

Contested prod. Non-encyclopedic article, unreferenced, WP:OR / WP:IINFO. Unable to ascertain any notability or third-party information to verify this. CultureDrone (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is probably more of a location to describe these referenced mega-elements. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. Mr.Z-man 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development history of the Final Fantasy series[edit]

Article is a direct duplication of development paragraphs from Final Fantasy (video game) and Final Fantasy II pages. As a result, it focuses on minute details and technical trivia of individual games rather than attempting to draw a global view of the development of the Final Fantasy series; it is basically a changelog in prose and not an encyclopedic article. Since the actual information should fit in the main Final Fantasy article (with further information in the articles of the individual games), there is no need to have a distinct article for development. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is accepted practice to make spin-out articles for sections that would be too large in the main article if expanded. In my honest opinion, the detail is not too minute and everything is referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — provided the duplicated sections are cut out of the main articles. In other words, you can have one or the other, but not both. Otherwise, the standalone article as-is is sourced OK (maybe needs a bit of cleanup as a few of them are of the primary nature). MuZemike (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation page or list - same rationale as MuZemike, but different conclusion. The development history of each game is already covered in each article on each game, and I think that's a better place to include the development of each game. There's no such thing as the "development of a series": it's just the development of a bunch of games compiled into one article. We really should just have a list of links to articles/sections, rather than copying the full section into its own lengthy article. Randomran (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, as others noted, there's duplication of content with the FF articles, so we've got a situation of one or the other. Given that video games should first and foremost talk about the out-of-universe game aspects - development and reception - over gameplay and story, I'd rather see these kept in their original articles. If the FF articles are running long, there's other ways to make them shorter, but the last thing I'd remove is the development. --MASEM 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the breadth and influence of the FF franchise, a break-out article is justified and as noted it is common practice to do such articles to prevent the main from being too long. Obviously if there's duplication in the main, then that should be remove and replaced with a link to this article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that this is a terrible idea, as it would basically gut out several good articles and featured articles. A "development" section is necessary for an article to hit that level of quality. Clearly the better place for that information is in each article about each game. Randomran (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duplication is not a problem, and this is the start of a useful history article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplication of information found in series article and individual games. No reason to duplicate, no reason to split per Wikipedia:SPINOUT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep epic game series with huge amount of history + influence. Content too big to squeeze onto FF series page. Have added link to this article on Final_Fantasy#History too. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with MuZemike that the duplicated information should be located mostly in this article instead of the individual game articles. However, the game articles should be clear about where the missing information can be found. I suggest reducing the sections in the game articles to stubs and adding the {{main}} template to the top of each of them. SharkD (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if people realize they're proposing that we cut the "development" section out of eight featured articles, effectively demoting/ruining them. And I'm also not sure if people realize there's no development history "across" or "between" the games: every development section is distinct, and really has no value in being compiled together. Randomran (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted for blatant copyvio. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Cassese, Inventor[edit]

Apparent COI biography for an inventor/businessman with one patent (an underpinner for picture frames). Independent WP:RS coverage supporting WP:CREATIVE not provided or found. Recreated after PROD deletion of Antoine Cassese. Also an apparent copy-and-paste from the inventor's bio at the company website here. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karatics[edit]

It's an existing concept (Website), but it fails the notability guideline. 52 google hits in total, I found no reliable third-party sources covering it. The website seems to be unreleated to the ebook that allegedly invented the concept, per the note on my talk page. See also Talk:Karatics. PROD declined. Amalthea^Talk 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the burden is on the author to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use/the subject of multiple secondary sources/etc. That burden has not been discharged. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if somone manages to dig up sources, this is still a dictionary definition. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted per WP:SNOW and long-standing general concensus game guides don't belong here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires III walkthrough[edit]

Appears to be a walkthrough/strategy guide, an orphan article, only contributor is Flippytoon123 The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a manual --Flewis^(talk) 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Wikipedia is for articles, categories, lists and pictures. Not game walkthroughs. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a game guide. one brave monkey 10:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate to an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Western music[edit]

This orphaned article contains no useful information. CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as indeed it contains no useful information. No prejudice against recreating a better article here. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an essentially blank article, completely without prejudice. I'd propose at least an interim redirect to classical music, which discusses the history of Western music in some detail already. This is an obvious search term that should fetch some information for a reader entering it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is good. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Western music is an ambiguous term (not that you ever hear of "Country and Western" artists anymore), so I don't know if a redirect works. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until someone with the time and the inclination to create a better article does so. It's an important subject, but this collection of links does not do it justice. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
d Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films aired on Disney Channel India[edit]

I believe that this list violates WP:NOT#IINFO and should be deleted. TV channels have a vocation to broadcast all manner of programs, including movies Ohconfucius (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this channel exists for a long time, the list has the potential to become endless and never finished. Not useful and quite indiscriminate. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The list, as the title says, is a list of films, with titles arranged in order. At some point in the past, they were aired on Disney Channel India, and maybe they will be seen there again. The only additional information (such as airdates) would still serve no purpose. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate information. Presents no notabilty. Also presents cross-categorization. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is nothing at all here that shows independent notability per WP:BIO from the group. Indeed, most of the article is actually about the group. Since even the group doesn't have an article, being a redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 2), a redirect appears pointless. Black Kite 11:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suleman Mirza[edit]

One half of the dance group Signature that performed on the second series of Britain's Got Talent. The dance duo itself is not notable, as it has received minimal coverage not directly related to the show, and so neither is Mirza. Though he has performed a little outside of the show, there is little to no coverage of this available. I have brought it here as I originally redirected it, and this was met with opposition. J Milburn (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. They don't seem to have done anything note-worthy since the show ended and most of the article content is about signature rather than the person in question. Wait with recreating Signature until such a time they've done more. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modify and redirect to Signature (dance group). Agreed that group hasn't done much note-worthy stuff following the end of the show but so haven't numerous other contestants from Britain's Got Talent and yet they have entries on Wikipedia. And the very fact that they came 1st runners-up in the competition makes them noteworthy enough. --Delhi Belly 2 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that other crap exists isn't particularly relevant. If you feel that other articles should be deleted, feel free to nominate them. Redirecting to Signature is not currently an option, as there is currently no article on Signature. The fact they came second does not make them notable- coverage not linked to the show may. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math Technology-Calculators[edit]

This reads like a personal essay on the Technology integration of calculators in US high school classrooms. Contested prod. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article reads like WP:OR at junior-high level. VG ☎ 13:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and VG and the fact that a section for this already exists. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Atmoz (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cenarium ^Talk 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DigMyPC[edit]

Non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article provides no evidence this is different from hundreds of similar sites. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The website doesn't even have a traffic rank on Alexa. Schuym1 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). --Amalthea^Talk 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameWire[edit]

non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (A7) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). --Amalthea^Talk 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vidoosh TV[edit]

Non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumpolar Health Bibliographic Database[edit]

non notable database. Google hit 324. Anef00 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The databaser has been published about in an important journal in its field. You need more than just Google hits to prove this is not noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate references. WP is not a google hit counter. DGG (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has high-quality sources that show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vladimir Putin#Early life and KGB career. Content already present there. Consensus ist that we don't currently have the basis for a standalone article. Sandstein 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin[edit]

Notability is not inherited, and as the only assertion of Vladimir Spiridonovich is that he is the father of Vladimir Vladimirovich, he does not pass notability guidelines for biographical articles. The information is contained in his son's article, and redirect was undone, so am bringing it to AfD instead. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate the redirect until such a time that an article of reasonable length can be written. The claim he was a cook for Lenin and Stalin could make him borderline notable, but that info won't be lost if we reinstate the redirect and keep the info in the other article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladimir Vladimirovich's grandfather, Spiridon Putin, was a cook for Lenin and Stalin. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PROVEIT, please. MuZemike (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does proving a fact on Putin's grandfather have to do with have to do with this AfD which is based upon the non-notability of Putin's father? Notability is not inherited. Anyway, read Vladimir Vladimirovich's article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an excellent illustration of the fact that family background is relevent to one's career. Should be elaborated in the articles on father & grandfather DGG (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge to the Putin we all know and, ahem, love. Per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of a person should be defined by independent third-party sources about this person. I provided a book; much more sources can be cited if needed. But perhaps a more notable subject (also discussed in books) is the controversy who were real parents of Putin... I thought we should avoid that subject and simply keep this article.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book you provided, however, is not about this person; he is merely mentioned in passing. We are not considering creating an article about Vera Gurevich (Putin's teacher) just because she was also mentioned in the same book, are we? If there were a book specifically about Putin's father, then it would have been different, but here it's just Putin reminiscing about his past, of which, of course, his father is a part. Including this information into the main article can be somewhat justified, but I don't see how having a completely separate article is. (I might change my vote if demonstrated additional, better qualified sources, though).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not about him, and it should not be. However, it describes the controversy about Putin's parents at several pages.Biophys (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that Biophys wishes to introduce some serious WP:BLP information on WP; that being that Vladimir Putin's parents are not who they say they are, and that he was born to Georgian parents and was raised in Georgia. He has already introduced this WP:BLP information at Artyom Borovik. Thankfully, Biophy's belief that Putin is a paedophile is not gracing any pages...yet. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could use more sources that would demonstrate he was notable. I am still debating creating an article on the father of the current Polish president, who gained some notoriety in media a year ago and has his own article on pl wikipedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Immediate family of heads of state are notable. They are always discussed in conventional biographies and reference books, a the relationship--environmental, familial, even genetic-- is relevant. People are connect to each other in various ways, and the immediate family is one of the most important, and these connections influence the person. Further, the general public considers this information important & significant, which is what is meant by notable. I cannot believe there are no sources, so the information should be much expanded. Is there no equivalent article in the ruWP? DGG (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation. No, there is no such article in the ruWP. The reason: it remains disputed who were biological parents of Putin. Some said he was born in Georgia by different parents (they allegedly found his real mother, took an interview with her, and so on). A notable journalist who dug up this story (Artyom Borovik) suddenly died in an "accident" while trying to publish the story about Putin's parents and materials about Russian apartment bombings. Biophys (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be forewarned, if any such information is ever introduced in any article on any individual, it will be removed post haste. Time to take off the tin foil hat Biophys. Not everything is a conspiracy. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate family of heads of state are not necessarily notable; for if they are, then the same goes for pop stars, movie actors, sports people, and the list goes on to include any other group of people on WP who have had biographies written about them. Not all countries are like the US and UK (and some others) where media attention makes such people notable; in many countries political leaders' families are in the background and not fodder for the media. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to userspace. Topic might be notable, but the article in it's present form is a disgrace and does not even merit "stub" name. Asks questions (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Ezhiki. No notable information at that time Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Vladimir_Putin#Family_and_personal_life. The subject's only claim of notablility is a relationship to a notable person, any verfiable information should be appropriately presented in the article about that individual. Guest9999 (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Butcher Boys[edit]

Orphan article, no references, weasel words. —Bkell (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. According to Google this piece of artwork is relevant to the South African art scene. Therefore all the deficiencies the nominator mentions can be quickly solved by requesting cleanup (perhaps from a Art WikiProject) rather than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can you point to the source you found, Mgm? Using this google search, there were 3 relevant hits in the first page (the rest were for a steak house (which imo deserves an article - but that's another story) and a golf society). This was one and the other two were blocked (I'm at work). But based on the nominator's reasons for a delete, I'm going to go with keep because 1>I'm not aware of a policy/guideline to remove orphaned articles; 2>References do exist; and 3>Weasel words can be edited out. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added to relevant sources to the article and I am about to look at a third that may provide additional info for inclusion. I have also reworded the article and done some formatting. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I think is the minimal amount of work needed to fix the article now. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MacGyverMagic and the work that he has done. DARTH PANDA^talk 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. The cleanup has helped a lot, and with references I now see that this artwork is notable. It would still be nice to have a link to it from some other article, though. —Bkell (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll see if I can find a relevant project to ask them to create an article on the artist. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per multiple references in RS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Small-group jargon, sourced to a single book. At the very best, a dictionary definition, but in reality simply some unnotable in-group jargon being used to prop up a how-to guide. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is largely based on one source (Neil Strauss) that's closely connected to the topic and stands to gain financially from promoting it. The rest are Usenet quotes. VG ☎ 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wp:neo at this time, not in general use, not verified by multiple reliable sources. wp:dicdef may also apply, in the best case. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, not in general use, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the original author of the article. While it's not spectacular, the above characterization of the article seems hasty and demonstrably innaccurate. The article currently has three sources:
- Strauss, Neil, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, ISBN 0-06-055473-8, p. 439
- Strauss, Neil (2004-01-25). "He Aims! He Shoots! Yes!!". New York Times.
- Dollar, Steve (2007-10-26). "He May Be Lovable, But He's Still a Loser". New York Sun. Retrieved 2008-10-28. (the link was broken, which might explain why this source was unnoticed, but I've fixed it and added a citation template).

So it's just not true that this article only references one source, Neil Strauss (and I will point out that one of the Strauss sources is a a New York Times article, a high quality source). The term is also used in the New York Sun article linked above. As for the the claim that the term is "not in general use," this is not exactly true, as it is used by a non-member of the seduction community in the New York Sun article (though to be fair, the editors above probably couldn't read it because the link was broken). I also found the term referenced in a political article when I started looking through the 100+ hits on Google News for the term. The other forum and usenet sources are interesting, but not relied upon for the notability of the article. Since this term has multiple reliable sources which also define its meaning, the article passes WP:NEO. I'll be the first to admit that it's not the greatest article, but I don't see how it is deletable. I just don't understand why we are having an AFD on an adequately-sourced article when the article was already kept in a previous AFD; must history repeat itself? --SecondSight (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still, really, only one real source: Neil Strauss for the first two, and passing mention in a film review for the third. If Strauss wants to flog his neologism to sell his books, he'll need to do a better job of it to get into Wikipedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have a major misunderstanding here in believing Neil Strauss came up with the term AFC, it had been in use for years before he ever came across it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a major misunderstanding yourself: 'assertion' is not the same as 'evidence'. Regardless, whether Strauss stole the neologism or coined it himself is immaterial, the key factor is it being a neologism and all. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again you are wrong in the belief that neologism is in itself enough basis to delete an article, for instance jumping the shark is a neologism Mathmo ^Talk 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards: a neologism--especially one utterly unsupported by multiple reliable sources--is not in itself eligible for an article. The burden of evidence is upon those attempting to add material to Wikipedia, not the other way around, after all. As for your example, it's a colloquialism, not a neologism, and one in widespread--and well-documented--use in a wide variety of settings, so as a counter-argument it's utterly inapt, even if one ignores this basic logical argument completely. And, finally, I notice that you rather ignored the whole question of evidence for your rather-questionable assertion in the first place. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple reputable sources. Mathmo ^Talk 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out, no, neither multiple nor reliable. Certainly not non-trivial outside the self-promoter flogging it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more references: The Economist: Lessons of seduction, The Age: Winging it, Rocky Mountain News: PICKUP ARTISTS UNITE, & BBC: Seduction, blog-style. Mathmo ^Talk 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A series of passing mentions, most of them seemingly leading back to one Neil Strauss? I'm detecting a bit of a pattern here. And once again, you seem unclear on the meanings of 'non-trivial' and 'multiple'; that is, examining the term itself in some sort of detail and not stemming from the same source. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment as per calenderwatcher, the sourcing is discursive... it's either from strauss, or from sources citing strauss. There are NOT multiple, reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why does it matter so much that they originate from Strauss? For each source, it still goes through a different editorial process. We have the NYTimes, ReganBooks, and the editorial boards of articles in the media. According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I can understand that many of us don't like Strauss because of his egregious self-promotion, but Strauss' marketing is really a red herring in this discussion that doesn't impact his citeability. Neil Strauss is trustworthy and authoritative source in relation to the subject at hand: the term "average frustrated chump" (though his work may not be trustworthy in relation to other subjects). At least, that's what the New York Times and ReganBooks thought, and I'm inclined to go with them. --SecondSight (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of multiple, reliable, neutral sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to seduction community. The term did not originate with Strauss, but has been around since at least the late 1990s. The reason why so many of the cites lead to Strauss's book is because when it came out it was one of the few secondary sources on the topic of the seduction community. I'm of the opinion that the AFC article is long enough to spin off from the "seduction community" article. It simply needs to add some primary-source cites to Jeffries and others, and cite some of the many newspaper articles that critiqued the seduction community after the Strauss book came out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sighting in Central Idaho[edit]

Article about a nonnotable UFO sighting. The article reads like a witness statement and includes no references to any reliable sources. This case was investigated by NUFORC but that alone doesn't assure notability. Examples of notable UFO cases would be the 2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting and the Phoenix Lights. These cases have been well documented and discussed and had multiple witnesses. This case is borderline hoax since there is no verification of its existance. Themfromspace (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be original research as well. The line Further investigation into the incident is forthcoming. seems to also violate WP:NOT#NEWS as we are not a primary source. Likely, it is a hoax, but there are plenty of reasons to delete (ie: wp:n, wp:v, wp:or) even if it isn't. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all encyclopedic. A remarkably uninformative article, copied in part ("further investigation is forthcoming") from some of the equally uninformative and cryptic reports from UFO investigators. Seems that there were four hunters, not otherwise identified (for their own protection, I'm sure) and something strange happened one night somewhere in "Central Idaho" , and they contacted "government offices" and "NUFORC", but not the local newspaper or even the History Channel. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Parodies of Sarah Palin. Merge, content is under the re-direct for someone to perform the merge. There is no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton

Sketch insufficiently notable $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) WP:NOT#NEWS $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. WP:NOT#NEWS says, quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." End Quote. This article cannot be classified as a sports announcement or tabloid story and the individuals involved include notable entertainers spoofing notable politicians. This entertainment sketch hardly counts as a news report, no?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge. Whereas articles about each and every Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin sketch are a bit "newsy," the content of this article could reasonably be included in the WP bio of Fey...or even an article concerning Saturday Night Live 2008 election spoofs in general.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a comedy routine, and those are legitimate subject matter for the encyclopedia. Clearly notable - the article already has quite a number of major mentions in independent reliable sources. How many routines do we have from Saturday Night Live alone? More cowbell, Lazy Sunday, [Happy Fun Ball], Larry the Lobster (Saturday Night Live sketch). The point isn't to show they exist, but that it's well accepted that if comedy sketches have sufficient coverage they can be the subject of encyclopedic treatment here. If it fits well into a "list of" article it can be merged too, but deletion would be silly. Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Keep or Merge with something like Parodies of Sarah Palin.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikidemon. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parodies of Sarah Palin. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tina Fey. A funny and very timely sketch, but so dated that it's unlikely to be a classic. Sure, it gets reported in the news, but so do Jay Leno's and David Letterman's jokes about the candidates. We'll know in about 8 days whether we'll be seeing any more of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. Who doesn't remember Jon Lovitz's dead-on impression of Michael Dukakis? A lot of people, I'm sure. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the episode itself isn't notable enough to get its own page, then neither is a sketch that appears from it. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable, and it's part of an ongoing event, not just a single news story. It might be appropriate as part of a larger article dealing with Fey and Pallin, but until that article exists, leave it alone. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parodies of Sarah Palin, an article that would benefit from some of the background information found here. Powers ^T 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't going to become a directory for every SNL skit. Yes, it's popular now, but 2 weeks after the election it'll be forgotten, regardless of who wins. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia notability policy states that notability does not expire. The sketch and its sequels have become notable via media coverage now, therefore they will always be notable. 23skidoo (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's very slanted towards including irrelevant cultural mems from the Internet age over irrelevant cultural memes from the pre-internet days. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, notability requires a consideration of the "historical notability" of an event. Tina Fey's dead-on impersonation of Sarah Palin has made her appearances the toast of the town, as noted in the article about the comedienne. But the sketch? I'm not sure that anyone can repeat any of the lines. It's not exactly Knights who say Ni. If it's any consolation, it will live on in YouTube, if not on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge The original sketch, aswell as the follow up sketches, have been given much coverage by the media. It is part of an ongoing event, and it has became a somewhat 'popular' part of the election. If the article isn't to be kept, merge it into a "Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin" article about all 5 sketches. -- ^[User]Jamie JCA_[Talk] 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of the SNL Sarah Palin sketches into one article or into the Parodies article. The nominator must have missed all the CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and AP coverage this and the other sketches have received. They most certainly are notable under every criteria WIkipedia has. HOWEVER I feel they should be combined into one article, either under an overall Parodies of Sarah Palin, or as a single Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin article. No question of notability in my mind, but there are more efficient ways to present them here. 23skidoo (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge combining the SNL sketches seems to be a good idea. I don'tsee the point of combining with other parodies, since we often do have articles on their sketches & it would break the pattern/. DGG (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not sure how best to do it but some sort of combined article would be better than treating this separately.Bonfire of vanities (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can merge Russia from my house! - merge all of this stuff into Parodies of Sarah Palin. Every two-bit comic with brown hair and granny glasses doesn't need her own article and not every sketch from SNL needs its own article. An excellent article could be written discussing the impersonations, sourced material about the comics, reaction from the Palin campaign, media speculation about the posible backlash that may result if people think Palin's getting too picked on, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere. Anywhere. McWomble (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parodies of Sarah Palin. Unlike Larry the Lobster, this article relates to a similar line of comedy sketches and should be merged into such. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parodies of Sarah Palin, if other editors are adamant about giving Ms. Palin and these parodies another entry in Wikipedia. Even that category, IMO, is questionable. Musiclover (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 - no assertion of notability. Tan | 39 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groupee Forums[edit]

Non-notable forum software Closedmouth (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable forum software. Schuym1 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King o' the Cats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The King o' the Cats

A good faith search of books and the web did not identify any reason to think that this story is notable. The fact that it is a real folktale is not a claim of notability. The notability guideline for books (while not strictly applicable) gives a sense of why not:

The book has been the subject of a work means non-trivial treatment (excluding mere mention of the book)
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a notable motion picture.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple schools.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

The article (and subsequent searching) does not find any of these criteria to be applicable, nor is the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources".

Bongomatic (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first external link mentions plenty of reliable sources to draw from. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, reliability or verifiability in and of itself is not a substitute for notability. Do you believe that the references constitute "significant coverage", or that they demonstrate the satisfaction of any of the notability guidelines for books? Bongomatic (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recounted by Mary Shelley in "On Ghosts" see here for an online version (last page), her account was written about here, and the tale is sufficiently well known to be written into a children's book, and a children's film. There are also some hits on JSTOR that appear promising, but I don't have access to them. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated that the existence of the story cannot be denied. But which of these represents a "notable motion picture", "major literary award", or anything that goes to notability rather than verifiability? Is it your claim that every story mentioned or quoted by a notable author is notable? That approach is specifically is rejected by WP:BK. Bongomatic (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I consider WP:BK to inapposite to this case - this is a public domain folk tale of unknown origin and age. It has been treated by independent sources. I feel that this meets the general notability guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's not on all fours with WP:BK, but since the references given do not constitute "significant" coverage (a half page in various books), I was trying to find more (somewhat analogous) guidelines to argue for inclusion. If the coverage cited is "significant", it's hard to know what brief in passing mentions could be considered as not significant. Bongomatic (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage far exceeds "mention in passing" and is "significant." You are setting the bar higher than for other things which have been found to be substantial or significant coverage. Edison (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this can be deleted because it is not the subject of a "notable motion picture" or "major literary award", then so can the Epic of Gilgamesh. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep artifacts of cultural history are notable, especially if mentioned by notable authors such as Mary Shelley. Gets plenty of mentions [57]. Historical items have proven that they're less ephemeral and thus have more intrinsic notability. They are an asset to an encyclopedia which pretends to significance. Sticky Parkin 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources have substantial coverage of this folk tale, making it notable. Edison (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Applying the guidelines for book notability to folktales is problematic and far from the best course and there is ample evidence of notability in the independant sources covering this folk tale. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as with all classic folk songs, all classic folk tales are individually notable--though if they are international, we would I think normally have an article at the English version & redirect the others. DGG (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a well-shared view. Is it indicated in any of the stated or proposed policies and guidelines? Bongomatic (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:N fits nicely for a folktale with many reliable and independent sources having substantial coverage of it. Folk tales are part of the shared cultural heritage of many nations sometimes going back a very long time. The major ones sem highly encyclopedic and satisfy the notability requirement. Edison (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:N with plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7. Tan | 39 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel (singer)[edit]

not notable. emerson7 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not because of notability, but because there's not enough content and context. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged by me as such, A7. Doesn't make a claim of notability, just says "he is notable". PHARMBOY ( moo ) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no evidence that these two are notable. If someone things the other three should be deleted, they need their own AfD as they were not properly bundled here. No comment on their merit. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat And Fiddle Hotel[edit]

Two pubs in Sydney. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are others of these: Albion Hotel, Beach Hotel, White Bay Hotel, equally worthy of deletion.--Grahame (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of these will qualify as historical buildings. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be considered in this deletion debate. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article lacks enough sources to establish notability. A Google news search doesn't reveal much either. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless either of them is proven to be heritage listed. McWomble (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per Cesar Award wins.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Tulli[edit]

Idle bit of self-promotion. The guy dumps his CV and thinks he has created a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ordinary article but he is still a Cesar Award winner. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires some fixes, but I agree with Duffbeerforme. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arunabh Das[edit]

Reads like self-promotion. Even his claim to notoriety for deleting some websites seems pretty thin. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not ascertained. The single incident of "deleting web-sites" is not enough to claim notability.Salih (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what's listed, there are some more sources out there, but it's just not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Also certainly seems to be written from a certain perspective. No other edits for article creator/prod remover. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. , whether or not to merge is an editorial discussion for te talk pages. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Is Over[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for more information Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Elect the Dead. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Merge To Elect The Dead. This page holds good information on the reason why Tankian created the song and it holds chart positions and what not. --Crocodileman (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for comments on this issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 04:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charted, sourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per Duffbeerforme Dloh cierekim 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western esoteric topics[edit]

Too broad of a list to serve any sort of purpose. WP:NOT a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or split into something more specific and meaningful. But not directory does not apply to lists of Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list has no clear inclusion criteria or boundaries. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one mans esoteric is another mans terrorism, or something.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete too esoteric. not manageable. maybe this should be a cat instead. Dloh cierekim 00:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional rules of golf[edit]

Claims to be "authority of the game of golf" but I am very dubious about its notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinly veiled advertisment for something called "TGRA", which may or may not be worthy of its own article, though I suspect the latter. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement accusation holds no water. I have been through the TRGA website TRGA website contains no advertisements and does not ask for money on any link I can find. There are external links of credibility including a professional event that will be using TRGA rulebook in an upcoming event. Also found a link on the search engine that the TRGA is supported by the Louisville golf company which has made classic golf clubs for decades. I have added that link to the list of external links on the wiki page. Both arguments here stating lack of notability, and claim of advertisement purpose or any act of deception are not viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astralography (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G11) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). Amalthea^Talk 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UnitOvOne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Somewhere between spam and not notable. Might even be speedyable. Chris (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced spam. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Malaysia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Declined speedy. This article was originally deleted as listcruft on January 16, 2007 by way of consensus. I propose that this is trivial directory information thus it violates WP:NOTDIR and should be deleted on those grounds (or speedy re-deleted). JBsupreme (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Information, Navigation & Development is the purpose of a list. Its up to the Articles to show WP:N of the bluelinks. It seems to be fufilling its purpose nicely to me. I also notice several misguided arguments in the previous AFD. eg "Malaysia doesn't have 30 notable shopping centers" & "Categories are more useful and relevant" neither statement is proven or debated in a convincing way. A Relist should have been in order as a 2 day ~~AFD~~ debate is, you have to admit, unusual. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (5th nomination) may be relevant here. Annotated lists provide some context that categories do not, and serve as reminders of articles that need to be created about notable malls that are currently redlinks. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a manageable and useful list. The only compelling argument in favour of deletion is that a category could be a better implementation. However, for whatever reason, wikipedia often has both. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for those in other countries that have recently appeared here. For the aareas where there are no blue links, consider keeping the links for a bit until someone can at least add stubs.DGG (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful, focused list that acts as a guide to navigation and article creation as well as providing context a category cannot. - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and improve. It contains a clear focus, can easily be sourced, and information can be added that a category cannot give (for instance, which is the largest in Malaysia, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove any unsourced red links. There is no way to actually tell (unless you're an administrator) if this is a genuine repost, so I don't think the db-repost is necessarily valid. The list is otherwise manageable and is capable of serving a purpose beyond categories. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ghost of hope street[edit]

Likely a hoax or an inside joke. Ships at a Distance (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or at best OR; e.g., Henry Zincston gets only this entry on a Google search. JJL (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghost stories can be notable, but this one is not sourced. I find no books, scholr, news or web sources. Dloh cierekim 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My morning jacket at the waterfront[edit]

Concert -- even though it's by a notable band, a single concert isn't a notable event. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Totally non-notable. Concerts are notable when Hells Angels are doing security, or someone yells out 'Judas'. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: May have been "intresting" (sic), but that doesn't make it notable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I'm from Louisville, and this is simply not notable enough for an article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I was there, and nothing I ever eyewitness is notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This concert isn't notable. Just because My Morning Jacket is notable and was promoted by a notable radio station doesn't mean the concert is notable. The three (incorrectly formatted) sources are to a blog, a YouTube video and a photo gallery on the band's official website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might deserve a mention on the band's page. Is not significant enough for its own article. Dloh cierekim 00:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Svetla Lubova[edit]

Non-notable recipient of an in-house award. No coverage in reliable third party sources. Svetla Lubova generates less than 500 ghits and zero news archive hits. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notable for One thing only and there is no for anything but her being a one-time "pet of the month". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass WP:PORNBIO, which states clearly the criteria for notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines, can you point out where WP:PORNBIO states that being a Penthouse Pet confers instant notability? RMHED (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award ... from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse..." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure being a centerfold is an "award" in the sense of being nominated and voted upon; that and a lot of us afficionados wouldn't consider Penthouse as a major porn magazine either. But I get your drift. --Quartermaster (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no she doesn't as she is not an actress and has never (inasmuch as I have been able to search) been in a porn film. I agree... WP:PORNBIO does not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Penthouse Pet is all she's ever been noted for, easy delete, though it might be helpful to have a "fair use" photo of her Penthouse centerfold ... just for more information. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oneevent is not applicable here, isf the event is actually notable. If we decide that being Pet of the Months is appropriately notable for an article, then this applies to all of them. Typically they will have some prior work of some sort, but a person can be shown notable by a single award or accomplishment. One term in congress, one olympic appearance, one bestselling book, and so one. (I do not mean to say these are equivalent in my personal view, but as illustrations)one DGG (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment So in your opinion being a Penthouse Pet takes precedence over the general notability guidelines? Interesting interpretation of notability you've go there DGG. RMHED (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that's the situation we seem to have gotten into via PORNBIO. Personally I find none of them notable, and I would personally like somewhat more restrictive criteria for minor media figures, Porn or otherwise, than we seem to be using, but that's only my personal views and not relevant here. With respect to Wikipedia, I do, however, hold with consistency and i do think it should be a rule to follow it if practical otherwise. . I suppose in terms of WP:N it would be asked whether this is intrinsically a notable award. I have no opinion on that, but if its a notable award, that applies to everyone who received it. As the workgroup seems to think it is, the question ehre would be whether this is a rational enough decision to get general support. DGG (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respects to DGG... I've done my searches and enjoyed the photographs... but I can find absolutely nothing about her from before Penthouse or afterwards. Its almost as the person's identity was created just for this event. No films. No interviews. No previous or subsequent appearances. Nothing. Its like she never existed before Penthouse, and she has done nothing since. This really does (sadly) seem to be the poster child for WP:ONEEVENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's really curious--is it in your experience unique? They gave her that placement though she had appeared nowhere else, and no one else thought to use her subsequently? DGG (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently AKA Ashley Adams. A Google image search suggests that of several Ashley Adams, she appears to be one. Porn performers seem to go by several names as a matter of course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PORNBIO applies here, as was reconfirmed recently in this discussion. Having already pointed this out to the nominator after he prodded the article, I'm not sure why this has been nominated for AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO - as above, clearly notable. Honey And Thyme (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone can explain how she is clearly notable when she doesn't meet the general notability guidelines? Because I'm baffled. RMHED (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an analogous situation would be Academy Awards for actors, cameramen, sound editors, etc. Not all of them will be household names or ever again achieve that level of recognition, but they become automatically "notable". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Penthouse Pet of the month is equivalent to an Academy Award, interesting idea, though rather insulting to Academy Award winners. RMHED (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things can be like other things without being the same as other things. There's no suggestion that they are equivalent. I'm not sure how this is in any way insulting to Oscar winners. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So winning an Academy Award is like getting naked for Penthouse magazine. Thanks for clearing that up. RMHED (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was naively trying to answer your question about notability, but I now see that you have a different agenda here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what my agenda is, as I seem to have misplaced my copy? RMHED (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your agenda, sir, is proper bollocks. I reckon you're arguing with DelCarb here without so much as considering he could be right. Please purchase a new agenda (preferably leather-bound for increased durability), and refrain from using it to put forth bollocks arguments. You wouldn't appreciate it if you were an agenda. Marcus Barrington (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper bollocks? as opposed to improper bollocks? Are bollocks at all relevant in regard to a Penthouse Pet? Most of the magazines readership probably do have bollocks but are the bollocks of immediate importance in this discussion? Beyond titillating the bollocks of the Penthouse readership what has this young woman done that's notable? RMHED (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. - fchd (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PORNBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. For consistency, WP:PORNBIO should be followed. If you doesn't agree with the guideline, you should argue for it to be changed rather than hope people will ignore it during an AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:PORNBIO that says a Penthouse Pet of the month is notable, how is that a major award? With regards to consistency in this context, I think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best. RMHED (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "of the Month" part was taken out last year in an effort to trim down the length of the guideline. There was no discussion about this cut. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty article w/o any biographical information, notability not established. There's no online information about this porn actress in Czech language, nothing at all, no mention anywhere. The name does not sound too Czech - it is possible the name and "Czech" origin were invented to add exotic feel. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no ceverage in reliable sources to establish notability. We look at significant awards for notability because they represent some form of peer or considered oversight in the selection of awardees for their work. However, in the case of the Pet of the Month, it's essentially the centrefold shoot for that month's Penthouse magazine. It's not even really an award. It's a name that Penhouse has chosen to apply to their centrefold feature. -- Whpq (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JBackus13 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)struck as sock of banned user[reply]
Delete due to the obvious lack of coverage in reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we need to discuss the general issue of whether this amounts to notability. Removing it from the guideline seems to never have been discussed. The point of using it would be that such appearances give the model broadly-based notice, amounting in practice to notability. DGG (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are countless pseudo-celebrities who appear on reality television shows each year, and despite their broad-based notice, do not ordinarily warrant individual Wikipedia articles due to their lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the arguments being put forth is that it meets WP:PORNBIO as an award. But it isn't really an award. As for the appearance itself lending notability, we don't accept mere appearance in other situations as notable. For example, a working fashion model gets a cover shot on Vogue doesn't automatically become notable. And actor appearing in a movie doesn't automatically become notable. We look for coverage about the person and the person't work to support the notability. That coverage is completely absent. -- Whpq (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the precedent created by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie. Pet of the month does not seem sufficient to establish notability (anymore). VG ☎ 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although interpretation of WP:PORNBIO seems to be in flux right now, Ginger Jolie met other aspects of the guideline, namely four AVN award nominations. It would be incorrect to assume the deletion of Ginger Jolie sets a precedent with regard to that guideline. The precedent would be toward the deletion of articles for people of borderline notability, when consensus to delete is nt reached in an AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes wp:pornbio as winning pet of the month. You can't use Ginger's article as a precendent, as it was a request by her PR person (and should have been kept anyway). PHARMBOY ( moo ) 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I agree that Ginger Jolie is not something we should be using as precedent (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case does not exist) the argument that this subject has received no substantial coverage from reliable third party sources speaks volumes. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Decisions on whether or not to merge can be made on the talk pages. There's no consensus for deletion. TravellingCari 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings[edit]

This article was begun earlier today as a potential ITN candidate. It did not achieve that status. Despite my best efforts to expand it, the plain fact remains this is basically a local crime story with zero encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is pretty hard to tell if an event is notable less than a day after it began. Likely, it should have waited to be created until after it was clear it was notable. Who knows, Wednesday, the media be all over it again for reasons we can't imagine now. This is the problem when Wikipedia is close to being "news". In otherwords, there really isn't any way of telling if it will be notable in a few days or not. Maybe in the future we should wait at least 24-48 hours after an event (the event happened exactly 23 hours ago) before we start an article that borders on news. Maybe we need a "db-toocurrent" discussion. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 01:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point, Pharmboy. If the story takes a dramatic turn, then I will gladly withdraw the AfD and expand the article. But I was following the news all day, and I got the impression that this was turning into a typical local crime story. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Merge concur with Pharmboy ~~and suggest a wait and see approach now that it has been created~~ but now feel a merge to the university's article is most appropriate. JJL (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With two fatalities, almost certainly will be notable, if anything about the media is predictable. No reason not to start it now. DGG (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article with the names of the four suspects being charged with the shootings. I hate to say it, but this is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hard one. I still think we need a way to speedy delete something local as "too soon, but no prejudice against recreating in 72 hours". Otherwise, we are becoming a primary source, which is a very bad thing. Not sure how to introduce a discussion on the idea, however. At this time, I still can't !vote because it is too close to the event to be fair. Same thing for merge, it is just too soon to tell what we should do. Any encyclopedia should be reflective, not up to the minute with news. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Central Arkansas. From what I understand, this is not the case of a random shooting, where a gunman walks onto a campus and starts firing away at the first people he sees. If it turns out that this is more than a case of two students who were killed by someone they knew, then it might qualify as a "school shooting" as the term is used in the media. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And contextualize, what impact did the event have? It took me less than a minute to find "School spokesman Warwick Sabin said it was the first use of the university's new emergency e-mail and phone call system, purchased last year after the Virginia Tech massacre." With several dozen stories on this already and little doubt follow up stories will exponentially increase that number I see plenty of notability as well as available sources. -- Banjeboi 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to central arkansas article.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obviously notable event with plenty of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to University of Central Arkansas. Whether to keep and let grow or merge and let grow till a separate article is justified is a judgement call but certainly it doesn't need to be deleted. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is an editorial discussion, doesn't need this AfD to continue. There's no consensus here to delete the article. TravellingCari 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public memory[edit]

Reads like an essay; no references, and it's not clear if the topic is notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see below ~~weakest delete~~ I think the concept may be valid for an article (and may have already been done) but I am not sure if the title is the right one for the topic, and if there is a single term to describe the concept that isn't wp:neo. Current article is very well intended, but would require a full rewrite. Collective conscience is an example of the article done right on a similarly vague topic. This might be a good rescue candidate as well, but I'm not the right guy for that topic. A WP:HEY job could shift me into a keep vote if it was sourced. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per this Princeton-published book (see also here), and tag the article for citations and potential rewrite. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it badly needs rewriting, but the information and the topic ought to stay. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that it currently reads like an excerpt from an essay and that it badly needs to be rewritten, but I think that the topic is just as notable as a nhmber of well-established articles currently on Wikipedia, including some of those pertaining to philosophy. With a re-write and citations, this one would surely be kept. Notability is not the problem here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Collective memory, which seems to be what the article is talking about. References can be added there to John Bodnar's book. Alternatively, if the book itself is reviewed, it might be the subject of an article about the book Remaking America. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect per Mansford THERE IT IS! I knew there was a term that already described the concept. Racked my little brain and couldn't think of it. Came close with Collective conscience, but no cigar. They would both be better merged and redirect to Collective memory. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this collection of sentences belongs in an existing article, then someone should start over there. It's not exactly well written and sourced.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collective memory. IMO there's not much material here that's not already covered in that other article. --Lockley (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect unless the term is verifiably used. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme Carrein[edit]

Article about the second to last person to be guillotined in France, this is his only claim to fame. While there is plenty of information on this person in French, with little English language content on Carrein, I'm not sure that he fulfills WP:N and WP:BIO for the purposes of the English Wikipedia. If I'm totally off base with this nomination, I apologize in advance, but (in my opinion) he has no worldwide significance that is shown on mentioned here. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw I was totally wrong, sorry :( Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who study the history of the death penalty in Europe (France was the last country in Western Europe to abolish it, in 1981) who might find the article of interest (particularly if their knowledge of French is not of a high standard). I wouldn't say you're being off base, but I defend my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDH59510 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep based solely on nomination info. I don't think we can discriminate against sources just because they are not in English. Much of the English speaking world traces ancestors back to France (US and Canada in particular). It would be good to have someone who speaks French look at it, but if a source passes wp:rs, the language isn't relevant. I can't remember the exact policy on this, but if memory serves me, this has been codified. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Plenty of information in French" amounts to "plenty of information". We have never discriminated against material sourced in other languages. The two sources in the frWP article are Le Monde, traditionally the most internationally notable French newspaper, analogous to The Times, and La Voix du Nord a major French regional newspaper, of over 1 million circulation according to its article in the frWP, part of an international chain. Unquestionably RSs. DGG (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monument Policy Group[edit]

Lobbying groups that likely fails WP:ORG. The only references I could find were related to the hires and offices of the organization or short blurps by one of the group's partners. I could not find and good sources that talked about the Monument Policy Group itself. Full disclosure: I have prodded all four partners of the group. Millbrooky (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible sources only treat the subject trivially. No significant coverage. Jeremiah (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Jeremiah - the sources have trivia coverage. While they lobby for very notable organizations, that's not much of an assertion. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Jeremiah Dloh cierekim 00:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Park Speedway[edit]

Note: this article was dramatically stubbed due to a suspected copyright violation, the current article does not resemble the version nominated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think this is borderline prod. But maybe its length and amount of content can possibly save it. But the main reason why it's going to AfD is simple: there isn't even an article about Riverside Park and everything about it is contained in Six Flags New England. Not to mention not a single source or even a category. --Sigma Epsilon Chi (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a lot less about the speedway at Six Flags New England than in its own article. I would think that NASCAR venues would be notable, like other types of stadiums. [58] turns up at least one article with the speedway as its main focus. --NE2 07:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The article in Six Flags New England doesn't contain this detail about the stock car track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.196.254 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Keep The track exists, you can watch the video on unreliable sources (youtube), gets 8k hits, and likely there was plenty written about it in newspapers. The problem is that if we can't find it in 5 minutes on the web, we assume it isn't notable (I do the same, we all do). The policy on notability says the subject matter must be "verifiable". Not "verified". I would bet my lunch money it can be verified, using newspapers in New England from the 50s. Those are not online. It was a NASCAR track, I am pretty sure it got press, and my confidence that reliable source exist (which is what the policy requires) but will take a while to locate (which is ok, read WP:DEADLINE). Common sense says it has to be notable, even though I have never heard of it before, so I have to vote keep. In short, show me one NOT notable track running NASCAR, and I might change my mind. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable regional attraction, generating ample revenue in the area (ie. presumption of notability), albeit hard to Cite this fact. I am confident that a gnews search will find usefull RS's. A Article Cleanup is recommended. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There isn't a separate article about Riverside Park because if there was, it would be proper to be folded into the Six Flags article. By contrast, the independent notability of the track is no more an irreductible part of Riverside Park than the Hartford Civic Center was of the shopping mall of which it was once a part. RGTraynor 05:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedway venues are just as notable as football, soccer and baseball stadiums (or perhaps a better comparison F1 circuits). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search shows sources supporting its notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as copy violation of [59]. Site claims it was the original info from the track website that was pulled over when the track closed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good catch by Gtstricky. I checked, and found a copy of the track's website at archive.org here that predates our page. In the absence of anything showing its release into the public domain, I've returned the subject article to the last version before the copyvio, which as you can see is a stub. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cenarium ^Talk 01:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David X[edit]

Personal advert for a 'dating coach'. No evidence of any notice outside of the 'Seduction community', which is about as horrid a concept not involving bloodshed that I could imagine. Note: to the person who removed the PROD tag: why yes, indeed, I feel very negatively against adding to Wikipedia rubbish being used by the entirely unnotable to promote themselves. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, the quote about him being "The Godfather of Seduction" in the first sentence is cited to a forum. Icewedge (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that he is more notable than I thought but my vote stays delete until his real name, an extremely essential piece of information that I have been unable to find, is added to the article. If no one can find such a basic piece of information on this guy then I deem the sourcing insufficient. Icewedge (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While it reeks of self-promotion, the book that is the main reference seems very notable. (check the wiki page for it, google it, or go straight here: . Also see David X in the book here. Tagging or cleaning is the better route IMO --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is in the book The Game (and as you can see from the reference above, it is about to be made in to a movie) and was interviewed by DeAngelo. Means a keep. Yes, the article could do with a little tidy up and expansion. But what one doesn't, it is a fine start for a new article (I only just came across it this morning). Mathmo ^Talk 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much of your editing history centres around this so-called Seduction Community, that's difficult to believe. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is hard to believe, that I only came across it that morning? Shouldn't be surprising, wikipedia is very expansive and I only log on intermittently. Secondly the extent of my edits on the edits on seduction community just shows that I have an extensive knowledge on this topic. Just like the fact I have a couple of my top edits on multisport related pages, I'm also heavily in to this topic in my real life as well. Thus if I make a statement on it (such as that the swim in a half Ironman is 2km long) then it is far more likely it is to be correct than not. But regardless, that is still entire up to you how much weight you wish to place upon it. Each to their own :) Mathmo ^Talk 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's notable enough for inclusion. The article can be de-spammed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is shown that the coverage in book is substantial, and that his coverage in it has been referred to elsewhere. Page count, please.? None of the other sources are usable. In an industry built on self-promotion, it is advisable to be very skeptical, especially of internet sources talking about each other in a tight circle. DGG (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see, at most, one reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only source (Neil Strauss) is closely associated with the topic, and the ReganBooks publisher is not that reputable, even if financially successful. Also, Neil Strauss stands to gain financially from promoting other pick-up artists' successes, including his own, so there's a heavy dose of WP:ADVERT in the book and consequently in the article. VG ☎ 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on his inclusion in the book that was a New York Times best seller. The book goes into enough detail to meet my WP:BIO requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gtstricky - do you have access to more than the Google link? And if so is there more mention than in the 1-2 pages seen there? Just trying to see if it reaches my BIO standard :) Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link has the entire book available. If you type in David X into the "search this book" field on the right it will bring up all the pages he is mentioned on. Just to let you in on my thinking, the book is not very flattering of David X. If that source was truly incorporated into the article it would be much less promotion and more balanced. It is however, just one source. I could not find much more. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - will take a look. -- SiobhanHansa 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned in something notable doesn't make someone notable. Notability is not inherited. I notice that there is no mention of him in the book's article, so he probably isn't even a big part of that book, in the wider scheme of things. At best I'd say we merge this into The Game. NZ forever (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor figure in the community - I could come up with a dozen others that are more significant than David X in the community - and the article itself is poorly sourced - just because he's mentioned in the Game doesn't make him significant - Swinggcat is far more significant than David X, and he's mentioned in the Game, and I couldn't imagine an article being written about Swinggcat Sedcom (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I read those pages. He is not covered substantially by the book, any more than the dozens of other minor figures. Confirms my view that trying to get an article on him is stretching things a little too far. As we say in other contexts, not yet notable. DGG (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, just more semi-advertorial clutter on wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the only reliable source is Strauss' book and as far I could see David X is mainly mentioned only in passing with one small section that provides any real detail (and that detail is fairly cursory), he does not seem notable. -- SiobhanHansa 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss he does not appear to be notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Tour[edit]

Non notable concert tour. No reason why it is significant. No extensive, reliable coverage. No real verifiable information. Also nominating the related tour below. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for failing to meet WP:GNG.The sooner we can make a WP:NTOURS the better. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band is notable, though mostly in Germany. I tend to think that a large tour that they organise would also be notable. Note that most of the supporting acts are also quite notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, just because the band is notable does not automatically make the tour notable. The huge lack of reliable, third-party sources to establish any sort of notability isn't helping either. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and sources found show there's the possibility for improvement to the article. TravellingCari 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful Red[edit]

Cheering section of a basketball team without significant third party coverage or notability off campus Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Even though article is covered in sources here, it doesn't provide any significant coverage from sources independent of the subject to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Jeremiah (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seem to be a number of articles about College basketball student sections and I've added some sources including a Detroit Press article. I also note that other non-Wisconsin sources mention the section. Duke's section was not deleted in an AfD earlier this year. I could probably be convinced of a merger to Kohl Center or Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball, but those seem to be rather lengthy articles right now. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP pending upgrades to the article. Group is notable and satisfies WP:ORG. See Google page and news search results. [60] [61] BroadSt_Bully ^[talk] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Dual Freq's arguments. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and allow to develop, per the bully's links. The sources are there, just not in the article. Tag it, fix it. PHARMBOY ( moo ) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG, but certainly notability is asserted. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References need work but Google shows that it has notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs work but still has a place in Wikipedia. Sawyer1990 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receives coverage on its own. matt91486 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. while it hasn't had a ton of participation, I see this as an eight day PROD. There's been no counter to the nom, no reason to think this is controversial. TravellingCari 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeform hardcore[edit]

Article has been tagged as being unsourced for sometime, i was hoping someone could find sources but no attempt has been made to improve the page, i can't find any sources at all and the article establishes no notability and appears to be entirely original research. neon white talk 14:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious original research. Perhaps the subject is notable, but there is not significant coverage of the topic in reliable third-party sources (which is why it's been tagged for sourcing, but none has appeared). Jeremiah (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all that text and no references, good job with the tagging and giving those interested a chance. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. or at least no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken of the VNC[edit]

While this is a cute play on words, as a software product it has not been noted in a non-trivial fashion by any reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. That it's also a download from apple.com, does that help? Just asking. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is on the verge (possibly) of satisfying notability, but at this point I don't think anyone could say there is significant coverage by third party sources. Jeremiah (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ca. 150 references listed on google news. Mentioned in dozens of books about OS X, according to google books. Seems like one of the most notable VNC clients for Mac OS X. --Karnesky (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going with Karnesky on this one. Google books shows it is a common software mentioned in Mac books. Google news shows it is mentioned as a great VNC product for Mac. It needs to be sourced but seems to meet the WP:N requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Satisfies notability; is the only mainstream VNC solution for Mac OS X; it is talked about all over the web. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Karnesky et al. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the depth of coverage may not be great, there are great many references, including lots of the dead tree variety. Since this app is not part of OS X, there's no obvious place to merge this stub. VG ☎ 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No release for close to three years, that appears to be tagged as a "beta" and there's been no CVS update for 19 months. This topic is easily relegated to a simple entry in the Comparison of remote desktop software entry where its entry on that page can link to the project page for the software. There is little in the page that adds any more information than what is already on the comparison entry anyway. Kurt (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Furtado:The Hits[edit]

Very poor sources and a distinct lack of certainty regarding release date. — Realist² 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:CRYSTAL). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crystal ball gazing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a crystal ball. Dloh cierekim 00:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged. Nothing to see here. Non-admin close. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top100 Singles[edit]

The content of this small article is already talked about within the page Media Control Charts

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Harout72 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't anyone know what a merge is? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page has been merged... Is there any reason this AfD is still open? DARTH PANDA^talk 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1081087/Meet-Voluptua-burlesque-dancer-goth-centre-BBC-radio-prank.html

[1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1081087/Meet-Voluptua-burlesque-dancer-goth-centre-BBC-radio-prank.html

[1]